check_naming

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (check naming compliance) but doesn't describe how it behaves: it doesn't specify what standards are used (e.g., Google Style Guide, C++ Core Guidelines), whether it's read-only or has side effects, what happens with invalid inputs, or performance characteristics. The return format is mentioned but without details on error handling or output structure.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for parameters and return values. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the parameter section explains both parameters thoroughly, and the return section describes the output. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more tightly, but overall it's efficient.

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 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters in detail, and mentions the return format. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about the naming standards used and behavioral aspects, leaving some gaps for a tool that evaluates code conventions.

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 description provides comprehensive parameter semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage with only titles 'Identifier' and 'Category', but the description explains that 'identifier' is the name to check and 'category' specifies the type with detailed enum values (variable, constant, function, etc.) and their meanings. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states the specific action ('检查' - check) and resource ('C++ 标识符命名' - C++ identifier naming) with the precise scope ('是否符合规范' - whether it complies with standards). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_memory_safety' or 'check_const_correctness' by focusing exclusively on naming conventions rather than other code quality aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions checking C++ identifier naming, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is appropriate (e.g., during code review, refactoring, or learning) or when other sibling tools might be more suitable. There's no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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