check_code_quality

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the specific rules checked, which adds context, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only behavior), return format, or failure modes. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists the audit rules without redundant wording. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 description, combined with a complete parameter schema and an output schema (which likely documents return values), covers the essential aspects of the tool. However, the lack of usage guidance relative to 'audit_file' and the absence of behavioral details (e.g., side effects) prevent a perfect score.

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%, with both parameters (file_path and code_content) clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to either parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Audits' clearly specifies the action, and the description enumerates specific AST rules such as Class size, Complexity, and Secret leakage, making the tool's scope evident. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'audit_file' beyond the rule list, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies the tool is for checking code quality against predefined AST rules, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With a sibling tool 'audit_file' present, the absence of any differentiation or alternative mention limits the guidance to implied usage.

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