deed_check

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 thoroughly explains the output format (JSON lines), the types of lines (diagnostic and obligation), the meaning of tiers (proven, tested, guarded), and that silence indicates a well-formed program. This goes well beyond a basic description, though it stops short of discussing side effects or error cases.

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 main purpose, then systematically explains the output format and semantics. While it is somewhat detailed, every sentence contributes necessary information for understanding the tool's behavior. It is structured logically and avoids irrelevant fluff, earning a solid score.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return format (JSON lines), the meaning of diagnostic versus obligation lines, the three tier values, and the significance of silence. For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete and prepares the agent to interpret results correctly.

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 one parameter 'source' with a clear description ('The whole text of one Deed module.'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check a Deed program and report what the compiler found.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like deed_test or deed_run by focusing on compiler feedback. The output format description further reinforces the purpose.

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 for when to use the tool: to check a Deed program for compiler findings and to understand whether obligations are proven, tested, or guarded. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unmistakable.

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