check_naming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks naming compliance and returns results with details and suggestions, but it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as what specific naming standards are applied (e.g., Google C++ Style Guide, ISO C++ Core Guidelines), whether it performs case sensitivity checks, or if there are any limitations (e.g., length constraints, reserved words). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose followed by parameter and return details. It uses bullet points for the category options to enhance readability. However, the inclusion of both Chinese and English terms (e.g., '标识符' and 'identifier') adds minor redundancy, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values, and the presence of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, it lacks context on the specific naming standards or behavioral constraints, which could be important for effective use.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'identifier' is the name to check and 'category' specifies the type with a detailed list of optional values (e.g., variable, constant, function), providing clear semantics that are not present in the schema. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('检查' meaning 'check') and resource ('C++ 标识符命名' meaning 'C++ identifier naming'), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'analyze_memory_safety' or 'check_const_correctness' by focusing specifically 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 implies usage context through the parameter 'category' which lists specific identifier types (e.g., variable, function, class), suggesting when to use this tool for different naming checks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_modern_cpp' or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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