slua_check_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral constraint that results are purely lexical and will not catch semantic or type errors — a real expectation-setting detail. It says nothing about error reporting, severity levels, or partial/incomplete code handling, which keeps it at a 3.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the affirmative purpose and immediately followed by the negative scope. Nothing is wasted and the semicolon construction keeps both halves tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains uncovered is how diagnostic results should be interpreted and whether fragments are acceptable input — modest but real gaps for a lint-style tool.

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% for the single 'code' parameter, but the parameter is near self-describing given the tool's purpose. The description does not clarify whether the input may be a fragment vs a whole file, nor anything about the 131072-character limit or language/version assumptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run language-specific lexical checks') and sharply bounds the scope by ruling out compilation and type checking. That boundary lets an agent separate it from lsl_compile_code/slua_compile_code, though it does not name those siblings 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?

Guidance is implied by exclusion: the description tells the agent this is not compilation or type checking, which indirectly points to the compile siblings for those needs. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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