eol_check

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry the burden. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it disclose any side effects, error behavior, or performance characteristics. This is minimally adequate for a simple inspection tool.

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, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. Every word conveys essential information with no redundancy or fluff. Ideal conciseness.

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 lacks an output schema, so the description should ideally hint at the return format or behavior. It does not mention what the inspection yields (e.g., a list of files with properties). Given the simplicity and the existence of sibling tools, this is acceptable but not complete. Scores 3 as adequate but could be better.

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 both parameters (cwd and paths) are already documented. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation. No improvement or degradation.

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 ('Inspect') and the specific items (EOL kind, BOM, svn:eol-style) for explicit files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eol_fix_verified (fixes EOL) and svn_propset_eol_style (sets property), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 like eol_fix_verified or svn_propset_eol_style. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where inspection is appropriate. The agent must rely solely on the tool name and purpose alone.

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