Check workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't restate it. What it adds is the breadth of the check suite and the `sbd check` CLI equivalence, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of saying what happens on findings (fail vs report), runtime cost, or output shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the enumerated scope, then the CLI-equivalence note. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never describes the result — whether it returns a findings list, per-category counts, SARIF/JSON structure, or any severity/pass-fail signal. For a multi-check aggregator with zero output schema coverage, some indication of the return shape would materially help an agent decide whether to call it or how to consume results.

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%, so all three parameters (diff, format, manifestPath) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 ('Run every deterministic check') and enumerates the concrete check families covered (manifest, secrets, unclassified fields, scaffolds, audit-log/decision-log coverage, PII in logs), plus the CLI equivalence to `sbd check`. This makes the resource and scope unambiguous, though it never names a sibling tool, so differentiation from sbd_validate_manifest or sbd_scan_text is left implicit through the enumeration.

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 word 'every' implies this is the umbrella check covering what the individual sibling tools do piecemeal, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. In particular the `diff` parameter overlaps with sbd_review_diff, and nothing tells the agent which to prefer; the reader must infer the routing.

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