exception_guard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals module/project scoping and suggests a fix capability via 'Fix → verify test_bridge'. However, it is ambiguous whether the tool actually modifies files or only reports, and it does not disclose side effects, 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?

The description is extremely concise, fitting purpose, scope, workflow, and a sibling reference into one sentence. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. The arrow notation is compact but slightly ambiguous, though it earns its place by conveying multiple pieces of information efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview. It explains the check scope, hints at fix verification, and pairs a related tool. However, it leaves significant gaps: what the output looks like, whether fixes are direct file modifications, and how to interpret results. The mention of test_bridge is vague without explaining what it does.

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 descriptions for both workspace_dir and file, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about module scoping that relates to how the file parameter is interpreted, but it does not directly add semantics to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides.

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 primary function: 'Check raise/throw uses project exceptions vs builtins'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from generic checking tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like guard_patterns, only pairing with config_drift, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage contexts through 'module-scoped (falls back to project scope)' and the workflow 'Fix → verify test_bridge'. It also pairs with config_drift, giving hints about when to use. However, it lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, so usage is inferred rather than clearly prescribed.

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