ketan_check_invariant

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool does NOT execute anything, which is a key safety trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (if any), prerequisites (e.g., workspace initialization), or what occurs on validation failure. The return behavior is also not described here (though an output schema exists).

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 well-structured: two purpose sentences followed by an Args list. Every sentence adds information, and it is front-loaded with the core behavior. No filler or repeated content from the schema.

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 simplicity (2 simple params) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, how to invoke it, and parameters. However, it lacks broader context about how this fits with sibling tools (e.g., use it before ketan_write_file_safe or ketan_run_bash_safe) and does not mention any prerequisites. This is a minor gap, not a showstopper.

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. It does provide meaningful definitions for both parameters: tool_name is the target tool with an example, and tool_args_json is described as a JSON string of the arguments. This goes beyond the bare schema names, but could further specify JSON format constraints or escaping requirements.

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 specific verbs ('Run a pre-flight invariant check', 'Validate a planned action') and clearly identifies the resource (planned tool call). It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the pre-commit validation role without executing the action, which is unique among tools like ketan_get_status or ketan_write_file_safe.

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 states a clear context for use: validate before committing to an action. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5. The 'without executing anything' and 'before committing' phrasing imply the appropriate timing.

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