staticcheck

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Run staticcheck for enhanced Go static analysis'. It does not mention that staticcheck is a safety analysis tool (non-destructive), what output it produces, or any requirements like a Go module context.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, though it is somewhat minimal. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional params, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling Go analysis tools, the description lacks sufficient context to guide the agent. It does not explain what 'enhanced' means or how staticcheck differs from similar tools like go_vet.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 action 'Run' and the resource 'staticcheck', indicating it executes the staticcheck tool for Go static analysis. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'go_lint' or 'go_vet' which serve similar purposes, and 'enhanced' is vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., go_lint, go_vet). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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