Check Project Consistency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context by specifying the scope (whole project) and the types of issues returned. It also mentions the prerequisite of an open project. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose and issues, sibling differentiation, and narrowing/precondition. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 rich annotations, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, when to use alternatives, and a prerequisite.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter, but the description adds value by explaining how to narrow the scan with checkTypes, which is not fully conveyed in the schema's enum description alone.

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 scans the whole project for continuity problems, listing specific issue types (character contradictions, timeline conflicts, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_document by specifying that tool handles single document prose critique.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (project-wide continuity check) and when not to (use analyze_document for single document prose). It also explains how to narrow the scan with the checkTypes parameter and notes the prerequisite of an open project.

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