sch_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states a non-destructive listing action, which implies read-only behavior. It doesn't disclose whether any design context is required or if the list is global, but for a simple query tool, the description adequately communicates its 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('List') and resource ('lint check codes'). Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what the tool returns (codes with severity and meaning) and nothing else is needed for an agent to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none, and it correctly omits any param information.

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 clearly states the tool lists lint check codes with severity and meaning. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('lint check codes'), which distinguishes it from siblings like sch_lint (which likely runs the checks) and sch_inspect (which inspects something). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you need to know lint codes and their severity/meaning, use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sch_lint, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. There is no misleading guidance, but it relies on the agent to infer context from the description.

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