Check Three.js project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not state that explicitly, nor does it mention potential side effects, performance implications, or prerequisites. The list of checks adds some context but lacks transparency about what actually happens during the check.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists three check categories. It is easy to parse and front-loaded with the verb. Slightly vague 'diagnostics' could be more specific, but overall it earns its place without waste.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description does not explain what the output means, how projectId is used, or how this differs from sibling tools like report_diagnostics and inspect_project. The mention of 'current revision' is vague and lacks context. For a single-purpose tool, this is under-specified.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the projectId parameter at all. It refers to 'current revision' but gives no meaning, format, or relationship to the parameter. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Checks' and names concrete resources: scene and camera loading, script syntax, and diagnostics. This clearly communicates the tool's action and scope, though it overlaps slightly with the sibling 'report_diagnostics' without explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_project or report_diagnostics. The description implies it's for checking project health, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.

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