check_tool_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: local-only execution ('arguments never leave the machine') and the specific threat classes it guards against (tool poisoning, argument injection, exfiltration). It does not say what happens on a failed check, which is the remaining 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and capped by the security rationale. Slightly promo-flavored in the last clause, but every sentence carries information an agent can use.

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?

The tool's security posture and locality are well covered, and there is no output schema to explain. But for a gate-style check, the description never indicates what a caller receives (verdict, flags, blocking vs advisory), which an agent needs to know to act on the result.

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% for both parameters, so tool_name and arguments are already well documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or nesting guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (pre-flight safety inspection) on a specific resource (tool invocations and their arguments) with a clear temporal qualifier ('before execution'). An agent can distinguish it from check_tool_result (post-execution) by timing alone, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'before execution' gives clear timing context for invocation, which implies when to call it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to the sibling tools (check_tool_result, analyze_prompt) that cover adjacent checks, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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