check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals core behavior (re-indexing, comparing, detecting removed exports, broken imports, and inconsistent types), but does not disclose potential side effects, output shape, or error behavior.

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 front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately follows with concrete behavior and an explicit usage condition. Every phrase 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?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate for an agent to know when and how to invoke it. It does not describe the return format, but the low complexity and procedural framing make this a minor gap.

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%: the single required filePath parameter is already described in the schema as the just-modified file. The description adds little beyond that, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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?

Starts with 'Post-change coherence check' and states specific actions: 're-indexe le fichier modifie, compare avec l'ancien etat, detecte les exports supprimes, imports casses et types incoherents.' This gives a clear verb, resource, and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like reindex.

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?

Includes an explicit trigger: 'A appeler APRES chaque modification.' This clearly indicates when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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