check_file

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.