prumo_check

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description usefully reinforces this with 'Nothing is written' while adding real behavior context: baseline suppression via .prumo-baseline.json and stats.baselined. It does not describe output format, but that is secondary for a read-only checker.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of finding categories, ending with the baseline rule. The long list is information-heavy rather than padded, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of conveying what is reported (paths, links, imports, agent config, notes) and the baseline/stats behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the return shape is only loosely sketched.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema; the description's mention of auto-detecting CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md/SKILL.md maps to targets but adds no syntax beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter detail.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: checking context files a coding agent reads against a git index, then enumerates the specific finding classes. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling prumo_fix (which would repair, not check).

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?

Usage is implied by the check/read-only framing, and the targets param's auto-detect behavior hints at the default mode. However, it never states when to run this versus prumo_fix or the other siblings, nor any preconditions (e.g., must be a git repo).

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