firmware_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds that the tool reconciles state against the registry SSoT, does not file anything, does not consult a gate, and how it relates to file_firmware_report's write action. This goes beyond annotations and provides useful behavior context.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and uses the second to clarify behavioral boundaries and sibling relationship. Every word adds value.

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 read-only checker, the description covers the main function and its integration with file_firmware_report. However, it omits explanation of the 'profile' parameter and provides only a vague hint about the return value ('says whether the registry is behind'), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema describes one optional 'profile' parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what 'profile' means or how to use it.

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 'Report the device's firmware currency vs the bundled registry (read-only)' and further explains it is the read half of file_firmware_report, distinguishing it from the sibling and specifying its scope.

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?

It explicitly names file_firmware_report as the write counterpart and contrasts behavior by saying 'nothing is filed, no gate is consulted' while noting when registry_behind is true the sibling contributes the report. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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