ik_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the behavior: "compile and return only ok + diagnostics (no artifact)", indicating a non-mutating, read-only operation. It also notes speed. It does not detail side effects or auth requirements, but for a check tool this is reasonable. It could explicitly state that no files are modified, but the 'no artifact' clause implies it.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and output, then add positioning context. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential context: it tells the agent the tool returns "ok + diagnostics" and produces no artifact. However, it leaves out some details such as whether path/source are mutually exclusive or any error handling semantics. For a tool with only three optional parameters, it is largely complete but not exhaustive.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters (path, source, target), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify when to use path vs. source or how target interacts, but the schema descriptions are sufficient for basic usage.

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 the tool's function: "Fast syntax/semantic check: compile and return only ok + diagnostics (no artifact)." It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like ik_compile by noting it produces no artifact. This makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: "The quickest write-compile-fix feedback loop" implies use for rapid iterative development. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool vs. siblings like ik_compile or ik_simulate. It gives a clear context but no exclusions.

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