edict_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the checking operations performed (name resolution, type checking, etc.) and input handling (single vs. multi-module), but does not cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, performance implications, or output format. It adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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, with two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and input options without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 complexity of semantic checking and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the tool's purpose and input handling, but does not explain return values, error conditions, or how results are presented. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on expected outputs would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('ast' and 'modules'). The description adds marginal value by clarifying the input scope (single vs. multi-module) and noting automatic cross-module import resolution, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs ('run the full semantic checker') and resources ('on an AST'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the exact checking operations performed (name resolution, type checking, effect checking, contract verification). It also clarifies the input scope (single vs. multi-module).

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 clear context for when to use this tool by specifying the input types (single module AST or multi-module array) and noting that cross-module imports are resolved automatically. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'edict_validate' or 'edict_lint', which are sibling tools that might overlap in functionality.

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