tree_check

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

With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it discloses structural-only scope, that domain summaries are not included, that narrowing by rule changes read cost, that named-rule evaluations print all reads with arguments and returned values, and that an unknown rule name is an error rather than an empty pass. It stops short of explicitly stating whether the operation is read-only or what permissions are required.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds behavioral detail. Some phrasing is dense and rhetorical, such as the 'is this still wrong?' framing and 'a red arrives with the values behind it,' but it remains informative rather than padded.

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 an output schema, the description covers scope, filtering behavior, structural-only semantics, read-cost implications, and error behavior. Return formatting is appropriately left to the output schema.

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 0%, but the description compensates well. It explains `path` as the scope root with checks applying at or under it, and explains `rule` as narrowing execution to one or more named rules, including cost and error semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: run every applicable rule at or under `path` for data checks. It also distinguishes this structural checking tool from domain summary/measurement tools, noting that summaries like tree_measure are registered elsewhere.

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 gives a clear use case for the `rule` parameter: asking whether one specific rule is still failing after a fix, and paying only that rule's read cost. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like tree_rule or tree_solve, so it lacks full when-not/alternative guidance.

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