Check local project workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the usage context 'before starting local project work' but does not elaborate on what the tool actually checks or how it behaves beyond that. It does not contradict the annotations and provides minimal additional behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the purpose and usage timing efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description could still be more complete by specifying what 'configuration and safety capabilities' refers to and what the result looks like (e.g., a pass/fail report, a list of issues). As written, it leaves the agent without a clear expectation of the output, though it is sufficient to invoke the tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 applies for 0 parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'configuration and safety capabilities' within the context of the local project workspace. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_projects or read_file because it focuses on diagnostics rather than project listing or file operations, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 a clear usage context: 'before starting local project work.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when not to use this tool or which sibling tool to use instead). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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