sswp_check_repo

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists the four conditions checked, explicitly states it does not seal an attestation or modify the registry, and confirms idempotency without side effects. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true).

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it checks, what it returns (status lines and verdict), and when to use it. No gaps.

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% with a clear description for repoPath. The tool description reinforces that it must be an absolute path to the project root, adding minimal but helpful context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it performs a lightweight repo health check by verifying four specific conditions (directory exists, .git directory, package-lock.json, package.json) and provides a READY/NOT READY verdict. This distinguishes it from siblings like sswp_witness, which runs the full pipeline.

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 explicitly recommends use as a fast pre-check in CI pipelines or before calling sswp_witness. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling names imply alternatives for full attestation or other checks.

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