ca-checkit

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it does not write files, call an LLM, or invoke children. It also clarifies 'invented_metrics is always false' and the default skip of heavy analyzers.

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 quite long and includes many details. While front-loaded with purpose, the enumeration of return fields and instructions for the agent could be streamlined.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and complex behavior, the description covers most important aspects but lacks detail on 'path' and 'workspace_root', and does not mention error handling or edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'focus' parameter in detail and mentions 'analyzer_mode' values. However, 'path' and 'workspace_root' are not described, leaving gaps.

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 it provides 'evidence-ranked condition-check advising' and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes itself by noting that 'recommendable_tools (never ca-aurait)', which differentiates from sibling ca-aurait.

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 explains when to use it (for context pack advising) and mentions analysis modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools like ca-smellit or ca-testit, nor provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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