Patent PreCheck — score patentability

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like safety (read-only), authentication needs, or side effects. The description only mentions what it returns, not whether it modifies state or requires permissions. 'Pre-check' implies non-destructive, but it is not explicit.

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 two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Run'. Every sentence adds necessary information without any fluff. Ideal length for clarity.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and return values. However, it could be more complete by specifying the output format (e.g., JSON structure) or error conditions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly noting to 'provide code or path', guiding the agent to choose one of those two parameters. This constraint is not present in the schema, so the description improves parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool runs a patentability pre-check on source code or invention description and enumerates the types of results returned. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like precheck_pillars or precheck_prior_art, which might be subsets of this compound tool.

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 description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not provide context such as prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when to choose an alternative.

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