research_check_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: no model calls, no inference of limits from prose, no mutation of progress/reports/reviews/receipts, and use of a shared local task lock. It also scopes the 'ok' signal explicitly to mechanical checks rather than semantic quality or delivery approval, which prevents misuse. Remaining gap: it does not characterize failure/error modes beyond 'returns errors'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, and each following line adds a distinct constraint (no model calls, no mutation, ok semantics) with no filler. The telegraphic fragments and undefined shorthand like 'ok' cost some readability but do not waste space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained; the description still signals that counts, range-check results and errors come back. Combined with the non-mutation and locking disclosures, this is nearly complete for a 2-parameter, low-risk check tool, with parameter meaning as the main omission.

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 0% and the description never names or explains the two parameters ('task' and 'artifact', the latter defaulting to final.md). 'Whole-artifact length' hints at the artifact parameter but does not state its format, path semantics, or what 'task' must identify.

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?

States a specific verb and object (check draft records and declared whole-artifact length) and pins a scope boundary (no model calls, mechanical only). It is distinguishable from research_check_reviewer and research_review, though the phrase 'declared whole-artifact length' is jargon that takes a second read.

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?

It names the workflow point at which to call it ('before review or finish') and gives a directional rule for which drafts to apply it to ('Correct ordinary drafts and recheck; preserve frozen evaluation originals'). It does not name the sibling check tool it is an alternative to, but the usage context is clear.

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