check_naming

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only validation, but does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify state, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or output format. The minimal description fails to provide transparency beyond the implied non-destructive nature.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and does not front-load critical information. It earns its place but could be expanded with minimal additional sentences to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 existence of an output schema and one optional parameter, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or typical use cases. The sibling tools suggest a validation domain, but the description does not leverage that context to make the tool's role clearer.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the sole parameter 'name_regex'. The agent has no clue what regex pattern to provide, its purpose, or format. This missing semantic information severely hampers correct usage.

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 specifies a verb ('Validate') and objects ('naming conventions and 3-level structure'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes naming conventions and 3-level structure, and does not distinguish it from sibling validation tools like check_dpt.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., check_dpt, check_missing_status) but the description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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