check_summary_grounding

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the tool is heuristic, may produce false positives, is advisory, and returns a GroundingResponse with status/score/findings. This adds crucial context about reliability and non-blocking behavior, which annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then explains advisory nature, then lists args/returns. The Korean text is somewhat verbose but each section serves a function and the structure is clear and logical.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function, advisory behavior, and return structure. It does not explicitly mention dependency on a prior folder scan, but that is inferable from sibling tools and the described purpose. Sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100% and the description merely repeats the parameter meaning (full draft markdown). It adds no extra semantic beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: it checks file names mentioned in a report against the current folder scan results. It distinguishes itself from validate_report_draft by noting that the save gate is that tool plus user approval, so the agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is advisory, heuristic, may have false positives, and does not block saving, contrasting with validate_report_draft as the structural gate. However, it does not explicitly say when to call it (e.g., after scan_folder_structure) or provide alternatives beyond the save-gate distinction.

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