guard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state what the tool returns and that it is a pre-change check, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say whether the check itself is read-only, what happens on failure, or whether any side effects occur.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists outputs and timing. The quoted question 'est-ce safe de modifier ce fichier ?' is slightly redundant with 'Pre-change safety check' but still helps clarify intent without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential context: when to call it, what it evaluates, and what it returns. It does not cover error conditions or alternative tools, but the tool is simple enough that the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The schea covers 100% of the single parameter, already describing filePath as 'Chemin du fichier qui va etre modifie (absolu ou relatif)'. The description adds context about pre-change checks and go/no-go outputs but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself.

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 identifies a pre-change safety check on a file and states the outputs: risks, files to verify, and a go/no-go recommendation. It does not explicitly name or differentiate any sibling tool, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from generic checks like status or health.

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 explicitly says 'A appeler AVANT toute modification', giving a strong when-to-use instruction. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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