Checks family-roles.json as source of truth, detects missing members in all downstream locations, and auto-fixes what it can (family-status.json, system-config.json, HTML counts). Flags UNTOUCHABLE files for manual fix. Run after adding/removing a family member.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | If true, only report what would change without making changes. Default: false |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: identifies source of truth, auto-fixes specific files, flags untouchable files. Annotations already indicate idempotent and not destructive, complementing the description.
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?
Three concise front-loaded sentences covering purpose, behavior, and usage context. No redundant information.
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 description covers purpose, behavior, and post-condition. No output schema exists, but the description implies the effect. A note on return value would improve completeness, but it is sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter.
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?
The single parameter dry_run is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 family-roles.json as source of truth, detects missing members, and auto-fixes downstream files, distinguishing it from siblings like auto_propagate by specifying the exact files involved.
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?
Explicitly states to run after adding/removing a family member, providing clear context. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools but the usage is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among multiple audit/check tools (e.g., accountability_check, drift_audit, security_audit). However, descriptions and naming help differentiate their specific scopes, so ambiguity is low.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_archive_safety, propagate_family_member), making them predictable and easy to understand.
33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (system health, audits, propagation, session management, etc.). The count is justified by the comprehensive scope, though it may feel heavy for agents.
The tool set covers the entire lifecycle of system management: health monitoring, audits, propagation, sessions, compliance, and more. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a nervous system framework.
