check_snippet

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 the stronger, non-obvious guarantee that the code is never executed and that diagnostics include suggested real names for misspelled symbols. It does not describe the shape of the returned report, but the static-analysis behavior is otherwise well disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the diagnostic list is informative rather than padded. The trailing 'Args:' block restates a single obvious parameter, which is mild 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?

With no output schema, the description partially carries the burden by enumerating what the check reports (unknown functions/modules/enum members, bad keyword or positional arguments, arity errors), which is effectively the return content. It stops short of describing the report format or whether results are structured, but it is adequate for a one-parameter, read-only analysis tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter carries only the title 'Code'. The description compensates minimally with 'code: Python source code,' which confirms the input is the snippet to analyze but adds no constraints such as completeness requirements, size limits, or whether imports must be present.

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 ('Statically check Python code that uses CuPy / nvmath-python') and enumerates the exact classes of diagnostics it reports, so the agent knows precisely what the tool produces. It never references the sibling retrieval tools (search_api, get_api_card, get_example), so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'without running it' suggests this is the way to validate a snippet before execution or before suggesting it to a user. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives.

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