cellc_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that diagnostics are terse (max 5) unless full=true, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects, but for a type-checking tool, read-only behavior is implied. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the main action and immediately provides a key detail about diagnostics. Every word contributes value; there is no filler or repetition.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the meaning of 'ok', the structure of diagnostics, or how parameters like 'path' and 'source' are used. The agent is left with significant gaps.

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?

The description only mentions the 'full' parameter ('full=true for all'), leaving 'path', 'source', and 'target_profile' completely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Type-check a CellScript contract.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cellc_constraints or cellc_explain. The mention of return values ('ok + diagnostics') adds further clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.

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