vibe-check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the tool's output behaviors (personality types, energy ratings, suggestions), but does not explicitly state whether it modifies code or is read-only. The word 'suggests' implies non-destructiveness, but it could be more transparent about side effects and return format.

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 two sentences, concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose and elaborates with concrete details, with zero wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It describes the input and the nature of the output (personality types, energy ratings, suggestions), though it could be slightly more explicit about the exact response format. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'code' described as 'a snippet of code to vibe-check'. The description adds no extra semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enrich parameter understanding.

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's function with specific actions: assigns personality types, rates variable name energy, suggests alternatives. It's a specific verb+resource ('vibe check on code') and effectively distinguishes the tool's quirky purpose even without 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you want a vibe check on your code). Since there are no sibling tools, no exclusions or alternatives are needed. The usage context is evident from the described actions.

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