cg_checkin

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states it runs a full validation/smoke pipeline and checks in, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting, reversibility, permissions) or what 'check in' entails. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 sentences only: first states primary action, second gives usage constraint and parameter hint. No redundancy, front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits behavior for validation outcomes, side effects of publish/bump, and return value (e.g., success confirmation). Incomplete for a complex checkin tool.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by noting that 'widget_dir' is an alias for 'path' for compatibility, clarifying their relationship beyond schema. Also highlights that 'reason' is required, aligning with 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 runs validation/smoke pipeline and checks module into library, with specific purpose for changes that should become reusable logic. Differentiates from siblings like cg_validate or cg_create.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this only for changes that should become reusable logic' and 'Requires reason.' Provides clear context for when to use, but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools among siblings.

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