check_license

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the conservative nature of the rules but fails to state what the output is (e.g., allowed/denied, risk level), how unknown licenses are handled, or what exactly 'known license' means. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the essential information.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity, the description is incomplete in context. With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain return values, edge cases (e.g., unknown licenses), and how the 'conservative' rules affect classification. The current description leaves these operational details unspecified.

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 schema has one required string parameter 'license' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description only mentions 'a known license', which implies the input is a license identifier but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., SPDX ID, full name) or provide examples. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing schema 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 'Classify a known license using conservative game-commercial-use rules' clearly states the verb (classify), the resource (license), and the specific criteria (game-commercial-use rules). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_open_source_projects or generate_attribution by focusing on license classification for a particular use case.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to classify a license under game-commercial rules) but does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or a preferred context. It is not devoid of guidance, but it lacks clear differentiation from sibling tools.

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