Get Checks

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The verb "Retrieve" does disclose that this is a non-mutating read, but the description says nothing about default behavior with zero filters, result volume, ordering, or truncation limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the filtering capability; no filler. It could be tightened slightly by making the relationship between the filters (can they combine?) explicit rather than implied.

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, all-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is fetched and how to narrow it, which is adequate. It omits the unfiltered default case and any sense of result shape, which are the remaining gaps for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all three filters with enumerated example values (and even notes that file_path auto-detects language). The description merely restates the same three filter dimensions, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Retrieve") plus a concrete resource (SystemDox checks) and parenthetically defines what a check is (banned patterns, required patterns, coding rules). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like get_guardrails or get_project_rules, which sound conceptually adjacent.

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?

It states the three filtering axes (language, category, file path) and the goal of narrowing to relevant checks, which implies usage. It never says when to choose this over get_guardrails / get_project_rules, or what happens if no filter is supplied, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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