check_repo

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns the real matching lines and that it is a verification/read operation, but it omits operational traits such as permission needs, path recursion behavior, or what happens on no match.

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?

Two tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the use case and return behavior. No filler sentences, though the examples could be trimmed slightly.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and return content. It still leaves path semantics and no-match/error behavior unspecified, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'a string (or regex)' maps to pattern plus the regex flag, and 'under a local path' maps to path. However, it never explains path format (absolute vs relative, file vs directory) or that regex defaults to false.

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 and resource: confirm that a string or regex occurs in files under a local path. The scope (local filesystem content) implicitly separates it from siblings like check_citation, check_math, and check_quote, though it never names them explicitly.

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 gives clear usage context — verify a claim about what a codebase or document contains rather than trusting an assertion — and supplies concrete examples ('the README reports 0.9086'). No explicit when-not conditions or named alternative tools are provided.

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