sloppass_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly discloses that SlopPass does not execute code, clone repositories, persist source content, or make paid model calls by default. These negative guarantees are exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a code-analysis tool. It could go further on permissions, rate limits, or what happens when a fetch fails.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and input modes, followed by the output artifacts and the negative guarantees. No filler, though the second sentence is a slightly long chain of negations that could be trimmed.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the return artifacts (receipt plus JSON, markdown, and HTML reports), and it covers the target variants an agent must supply for a 6-parameter tool with a nested required target object. Only minor gaps remain around failure modes and default behavior for optional fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the target object's kind/url/number semantics. The description echoes the three input channels but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (Run) and resource (SlopPass) and enumerates the three input modes it operates on: caller-provided source files, a unified diff, or a GitHub PR target. It is clear but does not distinguish itself from the many similarly named siblings (copypass_run, testpass_run, seopass_run, securitypass_run, uxpass_run), which an agent must still disambiguate.

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?

Usage is implied by the input modes listed (files/diff/PR) and by the schema's target.kind enum, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative SlopPass tooling it might pair with or be replaced by. Adequate but leaves selection entirely to inference.

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