card_builder_check_schema_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool makes HTTP requests to raw.githubusercontent.com and checks for schema matches. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), authentication needs, error behavior, or rate limits. For a read-only check, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, each adding value: first states the core action, second adds technical detail, third gives a use case. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and context. It mentions the external sources and the diagnostic purpose. A minor gap is not describing the output format (e.g., true/false or a diff), but the output schema likely fills that.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level detail because none is needed. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as per the guidelines.

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 compares the embedded schema with upstream Card Builder's HEAD manifest and block loader. The verb 'compare' and the specific resources (manifest.json, loader.ts) make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from other card_builder tools like 'card_builder_get_block_schema' or 'card_builder_list_block_types'.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a recipe stops working — the upstream may have shipped a breaking schema change.' This provides a clear and specific usage context. While it does not list when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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