precheck_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it discloses the tool is cheap (~100 tokens), non-destructive (pre-check), and surfaces summary information (failed approaches, unresolved issues, high churn). No contradictions exist between description and missing annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: four sentences that front-load the purpose, provide mandatory usage guidance, explain the output benefit, and highlight cost efficiency. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, one action) and the presence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description provides adequate context for an agent to use it correctly. It explains what the output conveys (failure history, issues, churn) but could briefly mention the return format (e.g., list of events). Still, it's largely complete.

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 schema has one parameter (file_path) with no schema description coverage. The description partially compensates by implying it is a file path via the tool's purpose, but does not clarify expected format (absolute/relative), required extensions, or validation rules. While the single parameter makes this less critical, additional clarity would be beneficial.

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's purpose: 'Check a file's failure history BEFORE modifying it.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like log_issue or get_issue by emphasizing its role as a pre-modification check. The mention of surfacing 'failed past approaches, unresolved issues, and high churn' further clarifies its goal.

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 explicitly says 'MANDATORY: call this BEFORE proposing any change to a file,' providing strong guidance on when to use the tool. It explains the benefit ('prevents expensive re-debugging cycles') and implies that alternatives like get_issue or get_context serve different purposes. No explicit 'when not to use' is needed given its narrow focus.

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