check_thresholds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose and does not describe side effects, whether it modifies anything, performance implications, or what 'size thresholds' means by default. For a read-only scanning tool, this is a notable gap.

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, using two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core function and includes a brief usage tip. This is efficient, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain return formats, default thresholds, recursion behavior, or how filters interact. An agent would likely need to experiment or inspect sibling tools to fully understand the output. The lack of behavioral details makes it incomplete for a complex scanning tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds value by hinting at the 'limit' parameter's role in controlling output, but it does not elaborate on other parameters like max_depth, extensions, or ignore_patterns. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 states a specific verb ('finds') and resource ('files/functions') with a condition ('exceeding size thresholds'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_line_counts or get_code_smells, which might also involve size or threshold analysis. The clarity is adequate but not exemplary.

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 offers minimal usage guidance: 'Use limit to control output.' It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would need to infer the intended use case from the tool name and schema alone.

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