check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning 'passed' and severity counts, and the fail_on effect. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects. The name 'check' implies non-destructive, but not confirmed.

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 very concise, using one short paragraph with two key pieces of information (purpose and parameter). Every sentence is functional, front-loaded with the main action.

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 only one parameter and a simple output (with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the return value and parameter options. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'watch' entails (e.g., one-time vs ongoing) or any prerequisites.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the two values of 'fail_on' ('critical' and 'warning') and their meaning, adding value beyond the schema's bare type and default.

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 runs a watch over all tables and returns a pass/fail gate. The verb 'run' and resource 'all tables' are specific. It differentiates from siblings like 'watch' indirectly via the CI-style gate concept, but does not explicitly compare.

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 explains the fail_on parameter and that it mirrors `scherlok ci`, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like 'watch' or 'status'. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative context.

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