Show cooldown settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful context by saying it reports where configs disagree and the lines that 'would add' the missing ones, implying it suggests rather than writes changes. It stays consistent with readOnlyHint and adds cross-tool aggregation behavior not captured elsewhere.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, with the return content listed afterward. The eleven-item ecosystem enumeration is somewhat long but does convey real scope.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back — current settings, disagreements, and suggested lines — and does so adequately for a simple read-only, single-parameter tool. Only the sibling-routing context is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains path and its default. The description adds nothing about path semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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: shows the 'unripe policy' / minimum release age settings for a directory, enumerating the package managers covered. This clearly distinguishes it from check_package and check_lockfiles by content, though it never names the siblings explicitly and uses unexplained jargon ('unripe policy').

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?

Describes what the output contains but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no differentiation from check_package or check_lockfiles. An agent must infer that this is the settings-audit tool rather than a package or lockfile checker.

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