mdan_check

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers non-mutation, so the description's added detail about specific checks and 'strictness follows the project scale' provides genuine behavioral context. It does not describe output or failure behavior, but these are less critical given the annotated safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and compactly packs the artifact types and checks into a parenthetical list. Every clause carries information with no filler or repetition.

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 check categories, scale sensitivity, and parameter semantics are present, and the schema fully documents paths and scale. However, there is no output schema and the description never states what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail report, list of failures, severity counts), leaving result interpretation ambiguous for a tool whose purpose is to produce a gate decision.

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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by linking the scale parameter to behavior: 'Strictness follows the project scale', which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Override the detected scale'.

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 names the tool as a 'quality gate on the project artifacts', lists the artifact types, and enumerates specific checks: unfilled placeholders, empty sections, missing sections, FR/NFR coverage, and acceptance criteria. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mdan_estimate_scope or mdan_trace.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to run this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are stated. The phrase 'quality gate' implies a gating use case, but the description never explicitly says when it should be invoked or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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