Release Readiness

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

Adds useful context beyond annotations (specific checks performed, read-only nature, no tests/deploy). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and description aligns fully with no contradictions.

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 concise sentences with clear front-loading: first sentence delivers core purpose and scope, second sentence clarifies exclusions. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, read-only, output schema exists), the description fully covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and behavior. No missing information for selecting or invoking the 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?

Description adds no parameter-specific details. Schema description coverage is 50% (path has a description, maxFiles has default/min/max but no behavioral info). Description does not compensate for this gap.

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?

Explicitly states it provides 'Read-only local evidence for release readiness' listing specific areas (inventory, documentation, Git state, whitespace checks) and explicitly denies running tests or deploying. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdlc_risk_score or sdlc_git_history.

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?

Indicates when to use (release readiness checks) and when not (testing/deployment). While it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives, the purpose and exclusions imply appropriate context.

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