check_docs

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the default target set is docs changed vs HEAD when no paths are given. It still omits severity levels, exit/error behavior, and what a failing result looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a parenthetical that defines the rule being enforced, with the default behavior trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical makes the sentence dense.

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?

For a read-only, one-parameter lint tool the description covers purpose and default scope adequately, but with no output schema it should hint at what a run returns (violation list, counts) and how failures surface. Those gaps keep it at minimum-viable.

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 single 'paths' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining the implicit default (docs changed vs HEAD) when paths is omitted, but it never says whether paths are files, directories, or globs.

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?

States a specific verb (lint) and resource (project docs), and enumerates exactly what it flags: history phrasing, design debate, and links into initiatives. It is clearly distinct from most siblings (regenerate_readmes, tags, questions), though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby 'validate' tool.

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 gives the default invocation scope (docs changed vs HEAD), which implies the normal usage context, but it never states when to reach for this tool over alternatives such as 'validate' or 'regenerate_readmes'. Usage must be inferred.

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