naming_consistency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Index required,' which is a dependency, but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 very concise, consisting of one sentence and a fragment. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words. However, it is slightly terse and could be clearer, but overall appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 description lacks essential context such as return values, operational effects, and usage examples. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., violations list). It also does not clarify read-only behavior, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema already provides parameter descriptions. The description adds the 'Index required' note, which is a prerequisite but not directly about parameter semantics. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not significantly enhance 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 states the tool checks new symbol names against project naming style (snake/camel/Pascal) and verb consistency, which is a specific function. It differentiates from siblings like style_sniffer and code_quality by focusing on symbol naming consistency, though it could be more explicit about comparing to existing conventions.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like style_sniffer or code_quality. The only usage hint is 'Index required,' which is a prerequisite but not a usage context. There is no mention of scenario fit or exclusions.

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