check_java

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it uses javac but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., JDK required), read-only guarantees, or return format. This is comparable to the update_drive calibration example, which scored 2.

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?

Two concise sentences: first gives purpose, second gives usage. No filler, perfectly front-loaded, every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema), and the description explains its purpose and usage modes. It does not mention behavior when no parameters are passed, but this is a minor gap for a check 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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter is described. The description adds value by explaining the filePath vs directory decision, which goes beyond the schema. envPath is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers 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 states the tool checks for Java compilation errors using javac, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling check tools (check_npm, check_python, etc.) by naming Java and javac.

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 explicitly tells how to choose between filePath and directory based on single-file vs project usage. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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