find_naming_violations

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

Discloses that it scans all files if filePath is omitted, lists conventions checked, and notes prerequisite. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately covers expected behavior.

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?

Efficiently communicates purpose, usage, output, conventions, and prerequisite in a few well-organized sentences. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers key aspects: what it does, how to use, conventions, and output. No output schema, but description mentions output type. Could mention performance or scope limitations but adequate for a simple tool.

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% for the single parameter. Description adds an example and restates that omission scans all files, providing marginal value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool checks code against standard Java naming conventions and lists all conventions checked. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_unused_code or find_possible_bugs by focusing on naming violations.

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?

Provides usage example with parameter option and states prerequisite (load_project). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings, but usage is clear from context.

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