check_sonarqube_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'check' but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe to call. It also does not reveal what the tool returns (e.g., a list of issues, a status) or any side effects, which is a significant gap given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 sentence of nine words, with no redundancy or filler. All words contribute to the meaning, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. It is an example of under-specification rather than unnecessary verbosity, but as a concise summary it earns a high score.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a very brief description. It fails to specify what 'check' means in terms of return behavior—whether it returns the issues, a summary, or just a status. Given the sibling tool auto_fix_sonarqube_issues, an agent might need to know if this tool just reports issues; the description does not clarify this, leaving a critical gap for decision-making.

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 100%, so both parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'in a branch' maps to the branchName parameter, but it does not clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination: 'Check SonarQube for code quality issues in a branch.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like auto_fix_sonarqube_issues by indicating a read-only 'check' rather than a fix operation, and from generate_implementation_report by focusing on SonarQube issues specifically.

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. It does not mention that auto_fix_sonarqube_issues should be used when fixing is needed, nor does it explain any prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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