check_text

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.