check_library_usage

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it surfaces signatures/docs, asserts deprecated verdicts, returns NoOracleRun/NoExternalSymbols if requirements not met, and explicitly states limitations (does not check arity or drift). This is comprehensive for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is relatively concise, though it includes some detail that could be considered verbose. Every sentence adds value, but the length could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior, prerequisites, and limitations. However, it lacks information about the return format or output structure, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining filter purpose for path, package, and deprecated_only, but it does not mention limit or worktree parameters, which are described only in the schema. Thus, it partially compensates but not fully.

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 dependency contracts for external library calls using SCIP oracle. It specifies the resource (external library calls) and the action (check/assert), and distinguishes it from siblings like find_callers or trace_callees by focusing on dependency contract verification.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for external library call checking) and prerequisites (requires an oracle run). It explicitly states what the tool does NOT do (not assert arity or renamed/removed drift), but does not mention alternative tools for those cases, which would improve guidance.

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