check_attribution

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

The description discloses side effects (creates compliance report and optional Todo2 tasks), typical runtime (1-3 seconds), and output format (score, status, issues). Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is valuable.

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 a clear structure: hint, bullet list of checks, and a final line with output, side effects, and runtime. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose, checks, output, side effects, and runtime. An output schema is not provided but the description sufficiently explains return values.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions including defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 attribution compliance across the codebase and lists specific checks (missing attribution, missing entries, uncredited references, dependency license compliance). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_alignment or security.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lint or security. The description only states what the tool does, without context on prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it.

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