check_workspace_adios_yaml

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, and the description's 'Check' aligns with that. The description adds the categories of findings covered, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as failure modes or whether it performs any side-effect-free scans across the workspace.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then includes the key timing qualifier 'before build or deploy' without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, has full schema coverage, has an output schema, and annotations cover its safety profile. The description supplies the essential trigger timing and expected finding categories, though explicit routing among security-related siblings would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries that burden.

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 names a specific action ('Check'), a specific resource ('adios.yaml'), and concrete concerns (security issues, exposed secrets, risky command patterns). This clearly separates it from writer siblings like write_workspace_adios_yaml and broader security 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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'before build or deploy.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer security_review_workspace, so the guidance is contextual but not fully prescriptive.

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