check_repo_hygiene

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

The description discloses important behaviors: no network access and fail-closed operation. With no annotations provided, this adds valuable context. However, it does not detail the output format or error handling beyond 'fail-closed,' though an output schema may cover that.

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 concise with three short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and subsequent sentences add key details without redundancy or fluff.

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 the simple single-parameter interface and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers context. It mentions offline operation and fail-closed behavior, but could add more about supported repository states or error cases.

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 already fully describes the single parameter (repo_path) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond referencing the contract, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 validates a repo for minimum release hygiene artifacts, using a specific verb (Validate) and resource (repo). It mentions seven specific checks and references a contract document, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_version_alignment.

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 implies usage for release readiness validation but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, though 'No network access' hints at an environment constraint.

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