List all checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by disclosing that the result marks which checks are 'locked (can't be turned off)', which tells the agent something about downstream edit feasibility. It does not address result size, ordering, or whether the full catalog is paginated despite returning 'every check'.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and return contents, then closes with the two usage cases. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return shape, and it does so by listing the key fields including lock status. What is missing is a sense of result volume and ordering for a catalog that returns 'every check'.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call rather than implying any filters exist.

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 names a specific resource ('every check') and enumerates what each record contains — id, default severity, what it catches, and lock status — so an agent knows exactly what this returns. The verb 'list' is only implied through the name and title rather than stated, and no sibling is named, but no sibling in the set overlaps in purpose.

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?

'Use to explain a finding or fill in a problem report' gives two concrete triggering scenarios, which is real when-to-use guidance rather than implication. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer check_message or get_house_rules instead).

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