check_cicd

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states what it detects but does not say whether it returns a list of found files, a boolean, whether it parses file contents, or what exit/status behavior to expect. For a tool invoked by an agent, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the relevant file types, and contains no filler or redundancy. It is lean and every word contributes to understanding.

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 is simple: one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and scope, but omits what the return value looks like and whether detection means existence only or content inspection. It is usable but leaves the agent to guess at the result shape.

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?

The sole parameter 'cwd' is fully documented in the input schema as 'Project root', giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('CI/CD configuration files') and enumerates the concrete types covered (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins, CircleCI, Docker, pre-commit). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling check tools that target tests, branches, or linting.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that it is for checking the presence of CI/CD configs, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative-selection context is provided.

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