check

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that no LLM call is made (important for cost/time) and that nodes and reasoning are returned together. This enriches the behavioral picture without contradiction.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and rule source, then a second clause highlighting key behaviors (no LLM call, output contents). No redundant words; efficient and clear.

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 5 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It explains the high-level purpose but omits any parameter semantics, expected input formats, or how output is structured beyond 'nodes and reasoning'. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves too much unstated for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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% — none of the five parameters (rules, scope, severity, max_chars, response_format) are described in the schema. The description does not compensate at all; it fails to explain the meaning, defaults, or interplay of any parameter. This is a critical gap for a tool with no other documentation.

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 states a specific action (diagnoses continuity) with a clear resource (book or node scope) and mentions the rule source (P2 SQL rules from spec/rules.json). It differentiates itself from siblings by detailing its non-LLM nature and output format, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools. It implies a purpose (continuity diagnosis) but provides no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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