run_safety_check

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

Description claims it 'ensures .backend-doctor/ is in .gitignore', which implies modifying the .gitignore file, a side effect. However, annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which contradicts a write operation. This is a serious inconsistency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, each sentence adds necessary detail. No fluff.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, steps, and usage context. Could elaborate on what 'safety' means or the return value, but given no output schema, it's fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it runs safety validation on a project path, including specific actions (validate, ensure .gitignore, prune old reports). It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnosis tools by explicitly positioning itself as a prerequisite to diagnosis.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before any diagnosis', giving clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the purpose is specific enough that the agent can infer appropriate scenarios.

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