Check a file for writing style issues

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only: the file is never modified.' It adds important details like Markdown masking for code blocks/tables, auto-discovery of config, and error conditions for unreadable/oversized files. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Concise at approximately 100 words, every sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with the core action, then adds behavioral semantics and usage guidance without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (same line-and-column report as check_text) and error conditions. Covers config auto-discovery, file size limit, and Markdown masking, making the tool's behavior fully understood.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining path must be UTF-8 and that setting config disables auto-discovery, which enriches the schema information.

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?

Explicitly states the tool reads a file from local disk and analyzes for writing style issues, directly distinguishing it from check_text for inline text. The verb 'read and analyze' clearly specifies the action on the resource.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use when the text lives on disk; use check_text for text already in the conversation.' This clearly defines appropriate use cases and the alternative tool.

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