check_files

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

The description mentions caching behavior ('per-engine content and configuration caching'), which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything, what it returns, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the action. It is efficient but lacks structure to include usage guidance or expanded behavioral details.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what result to expect, what side effects occur, or when to use it. The sibling tools suggest a comparative description would be valuable but is absent.

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?

The description implies that the 'files' parameter should contain changed files, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain file path format, what 'changed' means, or how the files are used. With zero schema description coverage, more parameter detail is expected.

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 identifies the tool as checking changed files, which is a specific resource and action, and distinguishes it from siblings like check_project by focusing on files rather than the whole project. However, the verb 'checks' is generic and doesn't specify what kind of checking (e.g., validation, analysis, syntax 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_project or ping. It lacks context such as prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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