Diagnose what to fix

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by specifying the output format (structured findings, suggested actions) and the focus on actionable items, but does not detail all behavioral aspects like response structure or error handling.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 simplicity (1 optional param, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. Lack of explicit return format is a minor gap, but the description's mention of 'structured findings' provides enough context for an agent.

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, so baseline 3 is appropriate. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter's existing description.

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?

Clear verb 'run guard' and specific resource 'only what needs fixing', listing concrete outputs: failing/warning validators, messages, structured findings, suggested next actions. Distinguishes from sibling tools like docguard_guard (full run) and docguard_explain (explanation).

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?

Implies usage for actionable diagnostics, but no explicit 'when to use' vs. alternatives like docguard_guard or docguard_score. Does not provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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