Check sycophancy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds that the tool returns a counter_prompt which the caller 'MAY' surface, adding some behavioral context but not deeply enriching beyond the 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?

The description consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second describes the return value. No extraneous information or verbose phrasing is present.

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 has an output schema and three optional parameters, the description adequately covers the high-level purpose and output. However, it lacks parameter details and usage guidance, which are important for correct invocation. The description is minimally complete but not fully informative.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'candidate response' and 'recent user messages' but does not explain their types, formats, or how the 'decision_context' parameter affects behavior. The description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'detect' and the specific resources (over-validation in candidate response, reassurance-seeking in user messages). It also mentions the output (counter_prompt). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_hyperfocus or check_rumination, which target different phenomena.

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 alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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