check_file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation it discloses that hashing happens locally while signer lookup goes to alalanet (a network dependency), enumerates the four possible verdicts and their meaning, flags the conflict case, and warns that a signature proves authorship, not safety. idempotentHint=false is consistent with querying a remote registry whose signers can change.

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 when-to-use trigger is front-loaded and every sentence carries information: mechanism, inputs, outputs, verdicts, caveat. It is dense and the enumeration of signer statuses could be tightened, but nothing is filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the description still explains what each verdict means in decision terms, covering inputs, mechanism, network dependency and interpretation. For a single-parameter verification tool this leaves no material gap for correct invocation.

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% for the single required parameter, and 'Pass path to the local file' mostly restates the schema's 'local path of the file to check'. It adds only the mild clarification that the target must be a local file rather than a URL or package name, so 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 and resource ('check' a 'local file') and spells out the mechanism: sha256 hashing locally plus a lookup of who signed that exact file as a release. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as sign_release (the signing counterpart) or check_agent (agent checks), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use before installing or running a downloaded skill, MCP server or package') and even a downstream decision rule ('conflicts... do not install'). What is missing is an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g., when to prefer check_agent, or that non-downloaded files need no check).

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