after_edit_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'Read-only; no files are written or modified.' It adds real behavioral value by explaining the delta semantics (edit-introduced vs. edit-resolved diagnostics against a baseline), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The 'no files are written or modified' clause is mildly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation but is short and harmless.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a two-parameter, read-only verification tool the description covers purpose, timing, and delta behavior adequately; only deeper parameter semantics are missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names both parameters conceptually ('specified edited files', 'optional baselineCheckId') and correctly signals baselineCheckId is optional, but gives no format, path semantics, or the 512-item limit, leaving the undocumented schema to do the rest.

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+resource+scope: 'Runs incremental diagnostics on specified edited files and computes a verification delta against an optional baselineCheckId.' The 'incremental on edited files' framing distinguishes it from broader siblings like check_project and get_live_diagnostics, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this after modifying files to verify whether edits introduced or resolved diagnostics relative to the baseline check.' Clear timing context, but it names no alternative tool nor any exclusion conditions.

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