recommend_checks

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

Discloses analytical behavior (detects patterns, returns list) and that it avoids running all validators. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or read-only, nor mention any limitations (e.g., file size, unsupported languages).

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 concise sentences: the first explains functionality, the second states usage. Every word adds value; no 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?

For a one-parameter meta-tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input, and output (prioritized list of tool names). It could briefly mention the output format (e.g., array of strings) but is otherwise complete.

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?

The only parameter 'codeText' is fully described in the schema. The description adds valuable context about the patterns detected (HTML, CSS, JS, JSX, custom elements) beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 analyzes code to detect patterns (HTML, CSS, JS, JSX, custom element tags) and returns a prioritized list of relevant validation tool names. It is explicitly framed as a meta-tool, distinguishing it from sibling validators.

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 recommends using this tool before running all validators to discover which are relevant. Provides clear usage context but does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives.

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