check_code

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is echoed by "(read-only)", and the description adds genuine value beyond it: every finding carries a file, a line and a fix, and secrets are never surfaced. This tells the agent what the output will contain behaviorally, though it does not discuss permissions or failure modes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a dense but informative enumeration of check categories. Every clause adds concrete scope; the parenthetical lists are long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what is inspected.

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 multi-category linting tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, all parameters, and behavioral guarantees (file/line/fix, no secret leakage). Return values needn't be explained since an output schema exists, so nothing essential is missing.

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, and it does: path is the game folder with steamworks.yaml, source_dir is the engine project when different from path, and rules restricts to specific rule/group ids with a pointer to get_spec_info("code_rules"). All three parameters are explained, though formats/syntax for rules remain slightly loose.

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 verb (check) and resource (the game's own code, engine settings, SteamPipe scripts) scoped to Steamworks rules, then enumerates the check categories. An agent can distinguish this from scan_project, validate, or steamworks_inspect from the description alone.

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?

Scope implies when it applies, and it points to get_spec_info("code_rules") for listing rule ids, which is a useful routing hint. However, it never says when NOT to use it or how it differs from siblings like validate or scan_project, leaving that to inference.

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