check_go

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'using go build', which implies execution of a command, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., creation of build artifacts, dependency fetching), prerequisites (e.g., Go toolchain installed), or how errors are surfaced/output. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the essential purpose and method. No unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what happens after the build (e.g., returns success/failure, shows error output). It does not, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding of expected outcomes. It also doesn't mention environment prerequisites, but the tool's simplicity mitigates the severity of these omissions.

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 both 'directory' and 'envPath' fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already informs the agent about parameter purposes.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Check for errors'), a resource ('Go project'), and the method ('using go build'). It differentiates from sibling tools like check_npm, check_python, etc., by explicitly naming Go and the specific build command.

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 when you need to check a Go project for build errors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_npm for Node projects) or any conditions under which it should not be used. It relies on the tool name to convey context, which is adequate but not explicit.

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