precheck_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is the key behavioral disclosure. It also clarifies what the check covers. It does not discuss error behavior or permission requirements, but for a simple read-only precheck with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 two short sentences with zero fluff: it front-loads the action, specifies scope and timing, enumerates what the check surfaces, and ends with the read-only safety note. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

Given a single parameter, an output schema, and the explicit 'Read-only' declaration, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It captures what the tool checks, when to use it, and its safety profile. No critical gap is evident.

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%: the single parameter file_path is already described as a 'Project-relative file path to check.' The description adds context about what checking means, but it does not add new semantic details about the parameter itself beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('a file's memory'), and the intended timing ('before modifying it'), then lists the concrete things it surfaces: open issues, failed and partial attempts, stale decisions, churn. This also distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue or get_context, which are more general reads. The 'Read-only' tag further clarifies its nature.

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 phrase 'before modifying it' gives an explicit usage condition: use this when you are about to modify a file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the instruction is clear enough to route an agent to this tool for pre-modification checks.

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