check_naming

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading 'the latest workspace-standard master' and comparing to the generated name, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor explain side effects, permissions, or response format details.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and efficiently conveys conditional behavior without redundancy or 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?

While the description covers the main modes, it omits output semantics (e.g., what 'providedMatches' actually returns), error conditions, and any side-effect caveats. With no output schema and no annotations, more detail is expected for full completeness.

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 low (33%), only 'source' is described in the schema. The description adds meaning to 'physicalName' (triggers comparison) and 'source' variants (workspaceId reads master), but 'logicalName' is not explained beyond the tool's overall purpose, leaving a gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Checks a logical name against the team naming standard (word list + rules).' It uses a specific verb ('Checks') and resource (logical name vs. naming standard), and the conditional modes distinguish it from related siblings like generate_physical_name.

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 description provides clear context for different usage modes ('With physicalName', 'With a {workspaceId} source'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. It gives useful situational guidance without exclusions.

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