ruff_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 a useful behavior beyond annotations by noting the output is token-efficient, which helps an agent predict output size, but it does not describe return format, exit behavior, or what happens with empty paths.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: the verb, the tool-specific action, and the differentiating output characteristic.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly. The missing usage routing is covered by the usage_guidelines dimension, not by this one.

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 100% for both parameters: paths includes glob support and the empty-means-whole-project behavior, and changed_only explains git filtering. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ruff linting') and distinguishes it from the sibling ruff_format by placing the focus on linting rather than formatting. Although other check tools exist, naming the linter and action makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose ruff_check over siblings like ruff_format, ty_check, vulture_check, or bandit_check. The only implicit clue is 'token-efficient output,' which hints that this tool is preferred when compact output matters, but this is not stated directly and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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