check_code

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes the tool as analyzing code quality and catching issues, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, though 'No file on disk needed' suggests no file changes. Slight room for improvement.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by use cases. No superfluous information. Every sentence is necessary.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., report), which would be helpful for an agent. Overall adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context like 'code snippet or content you have in hand' but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 checks code quality, catches bugs, code smells, security issues, and complexity problems. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'No file on disk needed', making it unique among tools like check_files.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'validate code before writing it to disk, review generated code, or check code you've read into context'. Also implies when not to use by stating 'No file on disk needed'.

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