check_my_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the polling behavior, which is genuinely useful beyond annotations, but it does not explain what 'terminal' means, what the response contains, or any side effects (e.g., state changes between polls). Since it adds some behavior context but not full transparency, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose ('Review the complete bound workspace') is front-loaded, and the polling instruction is a necessary operational detail. It could arguably be more structured (e.g., listing return behavior), but it is appropriately concise for the amount of information it conveys.

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 has a rich output schema (which likely explains the 'terminal' state and review results), so the description does not need to detail return types. However, the phrase 'until terminal' is ambiguous without context on how to recognize terminality, and the description does not clarify the scope of 'complete bound workspace' or what 'review' entails (e.g., security, code quality, dependencies). Given the complexity of a polling-based review, the description is minimally complete but leaves gaps that the schema and sibling definitions may or may not fill.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully (100% coverage), including the meaning of 'path' ('checks the project path; use '.' for the fixed workspace') and 'include_flow' (whether to run input/processing/external transmission flow analysis). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description specifies a clear verb ('Review') and a resource ('the complete bound workspace'), so an agent can deduce the tool's core function. It also hints at a distinctive workflow (polling with continue_review) that sets it apart from simpler scans, but it doesn't explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 instruction 'poll with continue_review until terminal' gives a usage pattern, implying this is a long-running operation and that continue_review is the follow-up tool. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives like scan_workspace or start_review_before_ship, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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