dibs_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns FREE or HELD, and that HELD includes ownership and expiry information. This is sufficient for a read-only check operation, though it could have noted absence of side effects or edge cases.

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 two sentences, compact, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes meaning, including the concise explanation of return values.

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 simple check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it checks, what the result means, and how to interpret the output. It does not discuss error cases, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and clear parameter definition.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema's 'repo-relative file paths', but it does reinforce the purpose by linking paths to claims. No new parameter-level detail is provided.

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 ('Check') and resource ('files claimed by another agent'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also explains the meaning of outcomes (FREE, HELD), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dibs_claim and dibs_release.

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 implies when to use it: before editing files to ensure they are not claimed by another agent. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention dibs_status, but the usage context is clear from the FREE/HELD explanation.

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