verify

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

Without any annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It states that findings are 'deterministic' and include 'file paths and line numbers,' which adds value. However, it does not address permissions, side effects (though likely read-only), rate limits, or what happens when no issues are found.

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?

Three efficiently structured sentences: purpose, output nature, and usage timing. No redundant or extraneous content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema partially offsets the need to describe return values. However, the description does not explain how the three parameters interact or provide examples for common use cases, leaving gaps for a tool invoked after code generation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly refers to 'paths' via 'source files' and does not explain 'checks' (the enum options) or 'severity_floor' at all. This forces the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which are insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('source files') and enumerates three concrete issue types (secrets, structural problems, low-quality comments). With only one sibling tool 'explain_rule', the purpose is clearly distinct.

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 description explicitly tells when to call this tool: 'after generating or editing code, before presenting it as finished.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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