pio_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return format (defects grouped and sorted by severity with file, line, CWE, message), the severity filtering behavior, and backend selection. It does not mention potential compilation side effects or failure modes, but this is reasonably transparent for a read-only analysis tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core operation and default tool are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information about behavior or parameter semantics.

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 output schema covers return shape and the core purpose is clear, but this is an optional-parameter-heavy CLI wrapper whose env, pattern, project_dir, and skip_packages semantics are unexplained. It is serviceable for basic invocation but incomplete for correct usage in multi-environment projects.

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, but it only explains severity (minimum level low|medium|high) and partially explains tool/default behavior. The other four parameters (env, pattern, project_dir, skip_packages) remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant inference gap.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation as static analysis via `pio check`, names the default backend (cppcheck) and alternatives (clangtidy/pvs-studio), and describes the output. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling build/test/run tools without opening the schema.

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 opening phrase 'Static analysis' implies when to use the tool, but the description never explicitly says when to choose it over pio_build, pio_test, or pio_run_target, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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