Get Checks (legacy name)

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important lifecycle trait (deprecated, still functional, removal horizon) and that filtering narrows results, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, result size, or whether all checks are returned when unfiltered.

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, nothing wasted, and the most decision-critical fact (deprecation plus replacement) is front-loaded before the functional description.

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, fully documented zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, filters, and deprecation status. The only gap is the absence of any note on return shape or volume, which is minor here.

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 all three filters (category, language, file_path) are already documented, including the auto-detection behavior. The description only restates that filters restrict output to relevant checks, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve SystemDox checks') with concrete examples of what a check is (banned patterns, required patterns, coding rules), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `get_checks` by declaring itself the deprecated alias.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('DEPRECATED — use `get_checks` instead') plus the alternative by name, and removes ambiguity about whether it still functions by stating it works and giving a removal date of 2027-01-31.

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