Review the agent for common mistakes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the evaluation scope and the return shape (score, findings with fixes, optional Markdown), which is useful, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating or whether it requires specific permissions, leaving the safety profile unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and the long colon-list enumerates checks that genuinely define the tool's scope. It is dense and run-on rather than padded, losing a point only because the single sprawling sentence would read better as a short structured list.

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 correctly explains what is returned (score, findings with fixes, optional Markdown), and it covers the parameters' roles. For a read-only review tool with three optional params and no required arguments, this is nearly complete, missing only safety/permission context.

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 67%, between the low and high baselines. The description echoes the optional Markdown output but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail for workspace or reportPath beyond what the schema already documents (CPS_WORKSPACE/cwd default, report destination).

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 ('judge whether the agent is any good') and enumerates the concrete dimensions it evaluates, so an agent understands this is a static health review that returns a score plus fixes. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings like cs_validate, cs_check_solution, or cs_check_drift.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives despite a crowded sibling set containing several check/validate tools. The checklist implies the tool's scope but gives the agent no routing signal for choosing it over cs_validate or cs_check_solution.

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