check_naming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey side effects. It states the tool flags generic names but does not disclose whether it modifies the file or if it is read-only. The scope is implied by 'root node' but not explicitly stated.

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 very concise with two sentences and zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, yet the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., a list of flagged names). The example helps but is insufficient for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'nodeId' described as 'Root node to check'. The description adds minimal context by indicating it checks layers under that root, but no additional details about the parameter format or constraints are provided beyond the schema.

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 tool checks layer naming conventions and flags generic names like 'Frame 123'. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('layer naming conventions'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like batch_rename and rename_node which actually modify names.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_rename or rename_node. The description does not include when-not-to-use or specify prerequisites.

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