justhandled_gitignore_coverage_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC on Base mainnet) and describes the operation as a check, but does not explicitly state side effects, read-only nature, or any data-handling implications. The cost disclosure is valuable, but other behavioral aspects remain opaque.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite being a relatively simple tool, the description omits key contextual details such as the output format (no output schema exists), the meaning of 'tracked_paths', and any usage prerequisites. The cost is useful, but overall the description leaves important gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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. It mentions 'paths' and 'ignore patterns' (mapping to 'paths' and 'patterns'), but does not clarify the 'tracked_paths' parameter at all. It also lacks format or syntax details, leaving the third parameter entirely ambiguous.

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 action ('Check supplied paths and ignore patterns for uncovered or tracked sensitive-looking files'), identifying both the resource (paths and ignore patterns) and the goal. This distinctly separates it from sibling preflight checkers by focusing on gitignore coverage and sensitive files.

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 when needing to audit ignore coverage for sensitive files, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions or exclusions are stated, and sibling tools are not referenced, so the context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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