Check forbidden action

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

Adds context beyond annotations: deterministic (no LLM), superseded/retired rules ignored, noisy advisory tier (~31% false positives), and separation from check_memory_use. No contradiction with readOnlyHint.

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?

Concise with front-loaded purpose. Two paragraphs well-structured. Some detail on false positives could be trimmed but adds transparency.

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?

Covers logic, confidence tiers, and recommended actions. No output schema, but return value is implied. Sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description implicitly defines action and project via context but lacks explicit parameter details (format, examples). Adequate but could be improved.

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 checks an action against forbidden_action rules, distinguishes two tiers (forbidden and possibly_forbidden), and separates from check_memory_use. It is specific and differentiates from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Before a code action, check it...' and prescribes behavior for each outcome: refuse for forbidden, ask user for possibly_forbidden. Mentions false positive rate and separation from provenance gate.

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