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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool sweeps a folder and returns every finding, and it adds a licensing/trial caveat. Still, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what a finding looks like, or any side effects or requirements.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the sentence is shortvoice. However, the trailing licensing/free-trial content is not directly useful for selecting or invoking the tool and adds noise to an otherwise concise definition.

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?

This is a relatively simple two-parameter tool, and the description gives enough to understand the basic action. Yet with no output schema and no discussion of return format, behavior on empty directories, or edge cases, the description is only minimally complete.

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 50%, with only ext documented. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond implying that 'dir' is the folder to sweep; it does not elaborate on directory traversal, extension filtering behavior, or examples for ext.

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 a specific operation: sweep a folder and return findings, scoped to Kubernetes Removed API lint. It is distinguishable from siblings like check_file and check_text by targeting folders, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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?

The description implies usage for folder-level linting, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of check_text or check_file, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'run all checks' and 'free' — it does not describe what the checks are, what output is produced, or whether there are side effects or limitations. This is thin coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's domain and purpose. The parenthetical 'free' adds marginal value but does not significantly bloat the description.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core trigger but omits important context such as what the checks involve and how results are returned. It is sufficient for rough selection but not for confident 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. It adds only that the path is for 'one file', without specifying format, constraints, or supported file types. Minimal added meaning beyond the schema field name.

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 domain ('Kubernetes Removed API Lint'), the action ('run all checks'), and the resource ('one file by path'). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like check_text and check_dir.

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 conveys a clear use case: run all lint checks on a single file addressed by a path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one file by path' framing gives enough context to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source. It discloses that the tool runs all 15 checks and that it is free, but it does not state what is returned, whether the operation has side effects, or how the optional path is used. It is not misleading, but it leaves gaps.

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 a single, compact phrase that front-loads the domain, action, scope, and pricing. Every word contributes useful information with no fluff.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema. The description covers the operation but lacks any hint about the shape of the results or how the optional path affects execution, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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%, so the schema already documents text and path. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('run all 15 checks') on a specific resource ('text') and scopes it to Kubernetes Removed API linting. The 'free' note adds practical context, and the contrast with sibling tools check_file/check_dir makes it clear this variant operates on inline text.

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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternatives, but 'on a text' implies use when the content is inline rather than a file or directory. This is usable guidance, but the routing to this tool versus check_file/check_dir is left to inference.

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