check_all_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating operation on a note but does not state that it permanently changes items, what happens if the note is missing, or how the 'force' parameter affects behavior. No side effects or reversibility are mentioned.

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 sentence of seven words, containing no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it may be too terse, sacrificing needed details for brevity, though this is still acceptable.

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 simple mutation tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'force' parameter, any return behavior, or failure modes. The presence of similar sibling tools increases the need for clearer context, which is missing.

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 description provides no information about the parameters 'note' and 'force'. Schema coverage is 50% (only 'note' has a description), and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'force' parameter. An agent cannot infer the role or valid values of 'force' from this description.

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 ('Check') and resource ('every checklist item in a note'), clearly identifying the tool's primary action. However, 'check' could mean 'mark as complete' or 'inspect', adding slight ambiguity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like set_checklist_items, but the resource is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_checklist_items or clear_checklist. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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