find_naming_violations

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it checks naming conventions and lists violations. It enumerates the specific conventions checked. There's no mention of destructive actions, as it is a read-only analysis.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, usage pattern, output expectation, list of conventions, and additional notes. Every sentence adds value, and it is concise without being terse.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains output as a list of violations. It covers the conventions checked, parameter behavior, and prerequisites, making it complete for an AI agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a usage example and clarifying that omitting filePath scans all project files, which is not immediately clear from the schema description alone.

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 'Check code against standard Java naming conventions,' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on naming violations, a unique task among the listed tools.

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 provides a usage example, explains the optional filePath parameter, and mentions the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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