guardvibe

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (pass/fail with details) and identifies the .guardviberc configuration dependency. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), error handling, and what happens if .guardviberc is missing.

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?

Three sentences with no redundant phrasing. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. The second sentence could clarify that mentioned features are config-file options rather than parameters.

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 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the essential contract by mentioning return values and configuration source. However, given the lack of annotations and presence of many similar sibling tools, it should explicitly state this is a read-only check and clarify configuration prerequisites.

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 has 100% coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description adds context that policies are defined in .guardviberc (relevant to path parameter), but confusingly lists features (severity thresholds, risk exceptions) that are not exposed as parameters, potentially misleading the agent about available input options.

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 specific action (check project) against specific resource (compliance policies in .guardviberc). However, it does not distinguish from siblings like compliance_report, audit_config, or check_project which likely overlap in functionality.

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?

Describes features (custom frameworks, severity thresholds) but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like compliance_report or generate_policy. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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