pydoclint_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose—no mention of output format, what happens when checks fail, or any configuration effects. It relies entirely on annotations, which cover safety but not operational details.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point. No fluff, no repetition, and the purpose is front-loaded. Perfectly 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits critical context such as when to use the tool, what the returned results look like, and how parameters affect behavior. The tool is straightforward, but the lack of usage guidance and parameter semantics makes it incomplete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'paths' or 'changed_only' parameters. The schema itself lacks descriptions, so the agent has no clue what 'paths' refers to (file paths? directories?) or what 'changed_only' filters. With two parameters and zero semantic guidance, this is a severe gap.

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 ('Check') and resource ('docstrings against function signatures') with a clear tool reference ('pydoclint'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling linting tools like ruff_check or ty_check, which focus on other aspects. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ruff_check or ty_check. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked. No conditions, exclusions, or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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