check_paraphrases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the specific checks (count against measured curve, borrowings from provenance, sibling fit, duplicates, keywords), which is useful. However, it uses domain jargon like 'measured curve' and 'provenance' without elaboration, and doesn't state side effects (though 'lint' implies read-only).

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, front-loaded with the verb 'lint' and the resource, followed by a list of specific checks. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the list is somewhat dense. No wasted words.

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 complexity (3 params, nested objects) and that an output schema exists, the description gives a high-level overview but leaves domain-specific terms unexplained (e.g., 'measured curve', 'provenance'). It doesn't describe the output structure, but that's covered by the output schema. Overall, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It references all three parameters indirectly: 'one question' (question), 'paraphrases' (paraphrases), and 'sibling question' (siblings). This gives functional context, but it doesn't explain the internal structure of the question object or how siblings are used beyond comparison. Overall, it adds partial meaning.

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's purpose: to 'lint the paraphrases of one question before they go into a pack'. It specifies the resource (paraphrases of a question) and the specific checks performed, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compose_question or validate_pack.

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 gives clear usage context: 'before they go into a pack' indicates this is a pre-pack quality check. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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