fusion_check

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns pass/fail plus reasons, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about how tolerance affects the result or what the failure reasons look like.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the validation scope and ends with the return contract. Every clause earns its place, with no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description covers scope and the pass/fail return shape. However, the undefined tolerance parameter and the absent guidance on navigating to sibling tools leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It gestures at expected_size_in via 'optionally the overall X/Y/Z size in inches' but never mentions tolerance_in at all, leaving half the parameters with no explanation anywhere.

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 names a specific verb (validate) and enumerates the concrete checks: body validity, timeline health, body-to-body interference, and optional overall size. That is far more specific than siblings like fusion_status or fusion_inspect, though it never explicitly names which sibling covers overlapping ground.

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 word 'optionally' signals when the size check engages, implying expected_size_in is conditional. But there is no explicit guidance on when to call fusion_check versus fusion_status, fusion_inspect, or fusion_run, leaving the agent to infer from the enumerated checks.

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