check_repo

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

The description explicitly notes that the tool is side-effecting and always persists a ReportFile, which is critical behavioral information, and no annotations are provided to cover this. It also mentions that the return value may be a summary when large, adding transparency. This is helpful but does not go into deeper details like exact file paths or side effects on the environment.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action and return type. The mention of side effects and persistence is valuable. However, one sentence might be dense, potentially combining multiple ideas, but it remains clear and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete because it does not explain parameter usage or the full behavior. However, the mention of side effects and large output handling adds some completeness haven't fully addresses the parameter gap.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so no parameters are described in the schema. The description mentions 'working tree or staged diff' but does not explicitly connect these to parameters like 'since' or 'staged'. The enum for threshold is not explained, and the meaning of 'task' and 'since' remains unclear, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's function: run safety checks against working tree or staged diff and return a report. It also distinguishes from siblings like classify_risk or list_risky_files by mentioning the ReportFile output and the scope of checks. However, it omits any detailed scope of what the safety checks actually include.

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 tool is described as running safety checks, which implies it should be used to assess code changes for risks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like classify_risk or list_risky_files. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so while the context is somewhat clear, it lacks explicit direction.

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