Tool Check Repair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior—checking structure and, when repair=true, rebuilding a repaired output file. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as whether the original file is modified, what happens without repair, and whether overwrite is required or destructive.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing. It could be slightly improved by adding minimal context around output and overwrite, but as a concise summary it is effective.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the output file behavior, overwrite semantics, failure modes, or when to prefer this tool over similar siblings. An agent would still need to infer or discover important calling conditions.

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 must compensate for the four parameters, but it only clarifies repair=true. The meanings of path, output, and overwrite are left entirely to the schema's types and defaults. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action—structural inspection of syntax/stream encoding—and mentions an optional repair mode that rebuilds a repaired output file. This is clear about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like tool_sanitize or tool_linearize, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tool_sanitize, tool_linearize, or tool_pdf_info. The description implies it is for structural health checks and repairs, but there is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or exclusion to help an agent select it correctly.

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