check_thresholds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Finds' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose important traits such as default threshold values, recursion behavior, or return format. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise, with two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose. The second sentence provides a useful hint about the limit parameter without unnecessary verbosity. While it lacks a structured layout, it is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how size thresholds are set (e.g., whether defaults exist for max_file_lines and max_function_lines), what the return structure is, or what path types are accepted. An agent would need more information to invoke the tool correctly in many scenarios.

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 the baseline is 3 because every parameter has a description. The tool description adds a small clarification for 'limit' ('Use limit to control output'), but it does not meaningfully explain the other parameters beyond the schema's terse labels. This meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Finds' and identifies the resource as 'files/functions exceeding size thresholds,' clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like get_line_counts and get_functions by focusing on threshold violations rather than raw data extraction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The only usage hint is 'Use limit to control output,' which addresses parameter usage, not tool selection. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are present.

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