program_checkChecks whether a program depends on specified paths, such as folders, libraries, links, or open files, so you can avoid moving or deleting data still in use.
Does a program depend on these paths (program folders, libraries, links, open files)?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "program_checkOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that 'depend' includes folders, libraries, links, and open files, but says nothing about scan depth, cost, or whether results are per-path or aggregate — and with no output schema, return shape is left implicit by the question phrasing.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical efficiently packs in the dependency categories. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a simple read-only, one-parameter check the description is minimally viable: purpose and parameter scope are inferable. Gaps remain around return semantics (no output schema), and against an unusually dense set of similarly named check tools it does not establish its niche.
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 single 'paths' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it partially does by clarifying that entries can be folders, libraries, links, or open files. It still doesn't say whether multiple paths are evaluated independently or as one set, nor what a path string should look like.
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 question form clearly conveys a dependency check on given paths and even enumerates the dependency kinds (program folders, libraries, links, open files), so the resource is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many similar '*_check' siblings (plan_check, storage_check, catalog_check), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 statement of when to call this versus plan_check/storage_check/catalog_check, no prerequisite mention (e.g., before deleting or moving files), and no exclusions. The agent must guess the scenario from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.