legal_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic but never says so, and gives no information about permissions, scope of the scan, or whether it mutates anything. Listing the check categories is essentially return-value content, which the output schema already covers.

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 compact clause with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a structured sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and for a one-parameter tool it covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no usage context, an agent still lacks enough to confidently distinguish this from legal_verify and related checks.

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 0% and there is one required parameter (app_dir) that the description never mentions. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does no work to 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 states a specific diagnostic purpose — identifying what blocks publishing the legal pages — and enumerates the check categories (placeholders, unrendered blocks, missing languages). It is clear without opening the schema, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling legal_verify, which sounds like an adjacent check on the same resource.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this versus legal_verify, legal_render, or the broader pipeline_status/orchestrator checks. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the name.

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