check_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check code quality' and mentions modes, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or that certain checks (security/complexity) require deep analysis—a key behavioral constraint. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then providing mode information. Every word earns its place; it is concise and well-structured without redundancy.

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 moderately complex tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention the return format, pagination behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools like analyze_project. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it omits that entirely.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'fast (logic-based) and deep (AI-powered) analysis modes' loosely maps to aiEnabled and deepAnalysis, but adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already describes. No parameter-specific details are added.

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 a specific action ('Check code quality') and a resource ('project type'), giving a clear sense of the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like analyze_project, which could serve a similar function, so it misses full differentiation.

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 mentions two modes (fast and deep) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like analyze_project or get_recommendations. There is no explicit context for selecting check_quality over its siblings, leaving the agent without decision-making guidance.

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