Nemesis Stale Fixtures

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool checks, but does not state whether it is read-only, what it outputs, whether it requires authentication or a connection to production, or how it reports staleness. The verb 'check' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or title.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: what the tool returns, how strictness levels affect results, and whether it accesses live production DTO shapes. The tool is simple enough, but an agent still lacks essential information about the output format and the meaning of configuration options.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 'paths' has a schema description, but the 'strictness' enum values ('all', 'untyped_only', 'breaking_only') are unexplained, and the description does not clarify how strictness relates to the detected missing/renamed/removed fields.

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') with a clear resource ('JSON/YAML fixtures') and target ('current production DTO shapes'), plus the exact concerns it covers ('missing/renamed/removed fields'). This is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nemesis_audit or nemesis_verify_symbol by focusing on fixture staleness rather than general auditing or symbol verification.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to validate fixtures against production DTO definitions. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over its siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as network access to production DTO sources.

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