Check task arguments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses a limitation (cross-option rules like mutually_exclusive/required_if cannot be checked and the answer reports what it could not check) and notes YAML 1.1 quirks (unquoted off/yes/0755) that affect results.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then limitations. It is a single packed sentence-plus-clause, but nearly every phrase earns its place; slightly heavy for one breath but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some of that burden; it hints at the answer's self-reported gaps, which is helpful. Combined with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though return shape is only implied.

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%, so the schema fully documents dir, file, line and task, giving a baseline of 3. The description references the input forms (inline YAML, tasks file/playbook) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (check) and resource (task arguments) and enumerates the exact scope: inline YAML, tasks file or playbook checked against INSTALLED module docs, covering unknown/missing/typed/deprecated options. It also positions itself against ansible-lint's args rule, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling lint/doc tools.

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?

Names the alternative (ansible-lint's args rule) and the condition under which this tool is preferable (it catches action-plugin modules the linter skips), which is clear usage context. However, it never gives an explicit 'use this when X, not when Y' routing statement or prerequisites, so it stops short of a 5.

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