codespell_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the word 'likely', which hints that results are heuristic suggestions rather than definitive errors. It provides no additional behavioral detail such as scope limitations or what happens with changed_only, but it does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple read-only checker.

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, has an output schema, and has safety covered by annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or mutation risks. However, it leaves the changed_only parameter and the exact meaning of 'project text and source files' undefined, which is a clear but not severe gap.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it mentions neither 'paths' nor 'changed_only'. The phrase 'project text and source files' gives some loose context for the default path scope, but it does not clarify how to restrict paths or what changed_only means.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('likely spelling mistakes in project text and source files'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is naturally differentiated from all sibling tools, which cover linting, formatting, type checking, security, dependencies, and tests rather than spelling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated explicitly: an agent can infer to use this tool when spelling mistakes are the concern, especially since no sibling tool covers spelling. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, so it stops at the implied level.

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