aura_docs_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds useful traits: possible verdicts (current|needs-update), that fixes are look-preserving, and that version-pins yield needs_check. But it is ambiguous whether 'fixes' are returned or applied, and says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether the tool mutates anything.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the arrow notation compresses a lot into little space. But the compression veers into cryptic shorthand ('pure', 'version-pin needs_check') that costs more clarity than the words saved.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does convey the verdict vocabulary and the look-preserving-fix behavior, which is the bare minimum an agent needs. It still omits invocation details and the exact nature of the returned fixes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it ties 'library + code_excerpt' to the required inputs, adds a size constraint (under 20000 chars) and an excerpt-not-full-page rule, and marks docs_note as optional. The docs_note parameter's meaning is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check pasted code against fresh docs.' An agent can tell it validates code against documentation. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling aura_docs_plan, and the '(pure)' tag is unexplained jargon.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The obvious sibling, aura_docs_plan, is never mentioned, and no preconditions or scenarios for choosing this tool are given. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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