vicem_check_guard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never says whether this is a non-mutating inspection, what happens when a guard trips (blocking error vs. findings list), or whether omitting diff_text falls back to the working tree or staged changes. Only the set of checks is disclosed, not the behavior around them.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the result shape (pass/fail, findings per guard) and default input behavior; it does neither. For a verification tool whose whole value is its verdict, that leaves the agent unable to predict what it gets back.

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% and the single optional parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description does not clarify the important implied semantics of omitting diff_text (what gets inspected by default) even though zero parameters are required.

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?

A concrete verb ("Verifies") plus resource ("code or git diff") that clearly separates it from the baton read/write/rehydrate siblings. The three guard names are internal jargon that the description never explains, so the agent knows it checks something but not what each guard enforces.

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 statement of when to call this, no preconditions (e.g., before committing or writing skeleton files), and no reference to alternatives or when not to use it. The agent must infer the trigger point from the tool name alone.

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