check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds genuinely useful framing that this inspects other people's live sessions across a team, but says nothing about what the result contains or how to act on it.

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?

A single sentence with the trigger front-loaded and no waste. It loses a point for the dangling colon construction, which reads as an unfinished clause rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations about returns, so the description is the only source of return-value information - and it only implies 'matching sessions' without saying what fields come back or whether conflicts should block the operation. Adequate for orientation, incomplete for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates branch, repository, and paths at a conceptual level but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and scope: other people's live sessions on the same branch/repo or claiming the given paths. Combined with the name 'check' the intent is readable, but the fragmentary phrasing ('...which live sessions...') never states the verb or that it returns a list, so the agent has to complete the sentence itself.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger context - before a commit, push, or edit - which is exactly the usage guidance an agent needs for a pre-flight tool. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative action (e.g. what to do when a conflict is found), which would be needed for a 5.

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