prumo_check

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, the description discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: findings recorded in .prumo-baseline.json at the repository root are held back and counted in stats.baselined. It also explicitly confirms 'Nothing is written.' No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but front-loaded: purpose first, then a detailed finding taxonomy, then baseline behavior, then the read-only guarantee. The enumeration of finding types is verbose yet earns its place because it is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to invoke the check; slightly tighter phrasing would reach 5.

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 read-only checker with no output schema, the description exhaustively covers what is checked, discloses the baseline suppression mechanism, and explicitly guarantees no writes. The only gap is the unstated output/return format (stats.baselined is mentioned but not the overall response shape), which is minor given the tool's clearly defined purpose.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by spelling out the auto-detected file set (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, SKILL.md, .cursor/rules and 'the rest'), which fleshes out what omitting targets means, but the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') with a well-scoped resource: the context files a coding agent reads, compared against the git index of a repository. It enumerates nine concrete categories of findings, and the closing 'Nothing is written' separates it cleanly from the prumo_fix sibling. This goes far beyond a restatement of the name.

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 makes the tool's nature clear — a read-only validation pass over agent context files — and 'Nothing is written' implicitly contrasts with prumo_fix. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer this tool over prumo_fix or prumo_drift, so usage guidance stays at the implied level.

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