Check a change against adopted rules

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, yet the description adds substantial context: base files are copied to a temp folder outside the repo and deleted, no git hooks run, nothing in the repo changes, and a 'skipped' status is returned when rules were never adopted. This goes well past what the annotations declare.

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 and no sentence is filler — the read-only mechanics and the skipped-status behavior are genuinely useful. However, it is a single dense run-on sentence packing many clauses, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 carries the return burden and does so: it names the reported fields (file, line, rule, evidence), the fixed items, exceptions, and the 'skipped' status. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the description largely restates the base default (origin/HEAD) already documented in the schema. It adds no new syntax or format guidance for `path` beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check the current change... against the rules this repo adopted'), and narrows scope precisely to violations the change introduces, plus fixed items and allowed exceptions. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool (explain, recommend, scan), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Use it before finishing a change' gives a clear temporal trigger, and the default base comparison is spelled out so the agent knows the context of a run. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use condition and no routing to the sibling tools, which would be needed for a 5.

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