spell_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run spell checker' and does not state whether the tool modifies the document, returns suggestions, requires saved state, or has side effects. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 short and front-loaded, with the action stated first and arguments listed compactly. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the brevity leaves some useful context out.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and minimal description, the context is incomplete. It lacks usage conditions, behavioral impact, and clearer parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but does not compensate for the missing usage and side-effect context.

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%, but the description adds functional meaning: doc_id is tied to open_document and action_params are described as 'HSpellCheck parameter overrides'. This goes beyond the bare schema titles, though it omits details about what override keys are valid or how action_params should be structured.

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 'Run spell checker' with a clear verb and resource, and the doc_id reference to an open document anchors it in the document-editing context. No sibling tool appears to handle spell checking, so it is reasonably distinguishable. It could be more explicit about scope, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use spell_check versus alternatives, nor prerequisites beyond the implied need for an open document. The mention of doc_id from open_document hints at context but does not explain when spell checking is appropriate or what it returns.

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