check_filename_consistency

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses heuristic owner-token stripping, stopword removal, facts-only output with no verdict, and the exact meaning of the filename parameter. This is far more transparent than typical tool definitions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured: first the algorithm and behavioral contract, then the input contract. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the references to §3 and §4.4 are compact without being filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, three parameters, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what is analyzed, how inputs are provided, and what the tool will and will not conclude.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and no parameters are required in the schema, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains that path and content_base64 are mutually exclusive, that filename is mandatory alongside content_base64, and that filename is the actual tokenized name, not a placeholder.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is highly specific: tokenize the filename, strip extension/separators/stopwords/owner-name tokens, then flag proper-noun-like tokens absent from the document text. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_docx_structure, check_language, or check_pdf_layout.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The input-mode rules are explicit: pass either a filesystem path or inline content_base64 with a real filename, and exactly one form must be given. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus its siblings, and it names no alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.