check_pins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that the tool compares hashes and reports changes, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects. The presence of an output schema is mentioned but its specifics are not described.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes necessary context (prerequisite CLI command) without extraneous detail. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 covers the core functionality and a prerequisite, but does not detail the output format or return values (though output schema exists). It would benefit from explaining what the agent should expect upon 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path', with a description and default value already provided. The description adds a CLI reference but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks a directory for skill file rug pull drift by comparing SHA-256 hashes against pinned values. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools which focus on scanning, searching, or accepting findings.

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 mentions that an initial pin file must be created via CLI ('bawbel pin'), implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_conformance or scan_chain, nor does it specify scenarios where it should not be used.

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