Crew citation check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: the check is deterministic and involves no model, which sets correct expectations about consistency and trust. It does not describe what a failure looks like, but the safety profile is already carried by annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the operational definition of the check is front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause carries information.

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?

Covers inputs, scope, and the deterministic nature of the operation with no output schema present, so the only residual gap is that the result shape (e.g., per-citation pass/fail) is unstated. Minor for a read-only verification tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (text, workspace) are already documented with format hints like `server.ts:120-180`. The description adds no syntax or path-resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (check file:line references in text against the repository) and enumerates the three specific assertions it validates: file existence, line existence, and identifier proximity. Nothing here overlaps with siblings like crew_second_opinion or crew_review_diff.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: on its own analysis before presenting it. It gives no alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set is functionally disjoint (stats/status/recon), so no routing confusion is risked. Clear context, no when-not guidance.

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