check_dir

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.