code_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema. It also discloses the output format (5-dim JSON with named dimensions). No annotations are present to contradict these claims.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a short conditional clause. It front-loads the most important information (read-only, 5-dim JSON scores) and uses minimal words to convey scope and alternatives. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with two required params and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, output structure, and a pointer to related functionality. However, it does not explain the meaning or scale of the scores, which could be unclear in some contexts. Still, it is reasonably complete for a focused tool.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as format constraints or relationships to the output dimensions, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 indicates the tool returns a 5-dimensional JSON quality score with specific dimensions, and distinguishes itself from code_review by pointing to that tool for findings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'returns,' making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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?

It explicitly mentions an alternative tool ('Findings? code_review'), which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. code_review. It does not discuss other sibling tools, but the specific conditional alternative is valuable and sufficient for common cases.

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