app_checker_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered; the description adds value by revealing the underlying data source and output grouping. It does not disclose behavior when the SARIF file is absent, how the limit parameter applies, or any error conditions. This is solid but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 dense sentence with little filler, and every clause carries information. However, the missing verb in the opening phrase is a structural flaw that forces the reader to reconstruct the meaning, and the useful level-filter hint is placed at the end rather than up front.

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?

For a 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description compensates for the missing output schema by describing result grouping but fails on inputs. The required `source` parameter is undefined and limit semantics are unmentioned, so the description is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 documents the level filter values (Critical/High/Medium/Low), but the required `source` parameter is left entirely opaque and `app`/`limit` are not meaningfully explained. An agent cannot reliably determine what value to pass for `source`.

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 names a specific resource (AppCheckerResult.sarif saved inside the app) and the result structure (counts by level, issues grouped by rule with screen.control.property locations). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like solution_check, which runs a check rather than reading a saved artifact. The opening phrase is grammatically malformed — a verb like 'reads' or 'returns' is missing — but the intent is inferable.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description never mentions conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, even though solution_check could plausibly be confused with reading checker results. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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