check_api_declaration

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, or prerequisites beyond what is implied by 'check'. Examples of parameters are given but behavioral traits are minimal.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear header, explanatory paragraph, and Args section. Slightly verbose but front-loads purpose and provides necessary context without being overly long.

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?

Given presence of an output schema (not shown), description does not need to explain return values. It covers when to use, what inputs to provide, and gives a real-world use case. Missing info about output format is acceptable due to output schema.

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%, but description adds significant meaning: examples for api, options for store, and ISO date format for scan_date. This compensates well for the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks what an API, permission, or SDK obliges you to declare before writing code. Provides specific examples and distinguishes from sibling preflight_scan, making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance to use before adding new APIs/permissions/SDKs to avoid rejection. Mentions it is the 'pre-write counterpart to preflight_scan', though could more thoroughly contrast with all siblings like explain_rejection.

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