check_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'syntax-aware parsing for code files', which adds some context about handling code, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., list of errors), error handling, or performance implications. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check spelling in a file') and adds a key feature ('with syntax-aware parsing'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or how results are presented (e.g., as a list or report). Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to ensure the agent understands what to expect from the tool's operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'syntax-aware parsing' relates to the 'syntaxAware' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics like examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Check spelling in a file with syntax-aware parsing'. It specifies the verb ('check spelling'), resource ('a file'), and a key feature ('syntax-aware parsing'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_spelling' or 'check_folder', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'check_folder' (for folders), 'check_spelling' (possibly for text), or 'get_suggestions' (for corrections), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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