chain_effect_checklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the core behavior: the tool produces a checklist derived from the file's type, and it positions the output as a safety net for ripple effects. However, it does not describe how the checklist is generated, what categories it covers, whether it depends on codebase state, or how it might behave for unknown file types. The added context is useful but shallow.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage motivation in the second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one simple parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context adequately. The main gap is not differentiating from the sibling multi_file_checklist and not describing what the returned checklist looks like, but given the low complexity this is a minor 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'file' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that the file is 'being changed' and that its type drives the checklist, but no format, syntax, or path details are added beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Generates'), a clear resource ('a checklist of things to verify'), and the basis for generation ('the type of file being changed'). This is distinct from siblings that run linters, tests, or compute impact graphs. However, it does not explicitly call out the single-file nature that differentiates it from the sibling multi_file_checklist, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 second sentence, 'Use this to ensure you don't miss any ripple effects of your changes,' gives clear usage context: invoke this when changing a file and wanting to verify side effects. But it provides no exclusion criteria, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as multi_file_checklist or get_impact_from_diff that might be more appropriate in other scenarios.

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