quick_check

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that traversal only happens on confirm, that the default is a non-scanning preview, that it is 'sub-second', and that a user agreement gate exists. It stops short of stating that nothing is written to disk or how results are reported, which for a filesystem-touching tool is a meaningful omission.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it verifies, then the gating rule. The confirm/default behavior is restated in both prose and schema, a small redundancy, but overall the text is dense and earns its length.

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 two-parameter read-out tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what a confirmed run returns (a report object? findings list? pass/fail per check?). It only describes the preview mode's output, leaving the actual audit result shape unspecified.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, so the description's explanation of confirm:true vs false largely duplicates the schema text. The added phrasing 'requires user agreement' frames confirm as a consent gate rather than a plain flag, which is mild extra value; project_path gets no elaboration beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('preflight check ... repository stack, governance policies, and baseline scaffolding') and enumerates exactly what is verified: AGENTS.md, licensing, .gitignore secret hygiene, dependency lockfile, and test runner declaration. Nothing among the siblings (skills, license, version tools) overlaps, so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition — run it 'before modifying code' — which is real situational guidance rather than a restatement of the name. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, but the sibling tools are unrelated utility calls, so the practical gap is small.

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