Fleet Evidence Check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so this is a state-mutating, non-idempotent local operation — yet the 'check' framing in both name and description implies a passive read, creating a misleading impression the description never corrects. Nothing is added beyond the annotations: no side effects, no required inputs, no failure modes.

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?

It is short, but brevity without content is under-specification, not conciseness. The opening sentence merely echoes the name and the second sentence is generic module boilerplate that does not earn its place.

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 13-parameter, non-idempotent tool with an output schema and multiple verification siblings, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs: what 'evidence' is validated, what the check guarantees, or when to prefer it. The output schema excuses explaining return values, but nothing else is covered.

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 100%, so all 13 parameters (part, force, phase, job_id, dry_run, fleet_evidence_json, etc.) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds zero parameter meaning — notably it never explains fleet_evidence_json, the parameter that appears to be this tool's core input.

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 restates the tool name ('Fleet evidence check') and adds only a module-level boilerplate tagline ('Core workspace organization, configuration, and maintenance') that describes rm_workspace as a whole, not this tool. It never says what evidence is checked, against what, or what a 'check' produces — an agent cannot distinguish this from siblings like rm_concepts_verify_candidate or rm_gates_audit_fail_fast.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives appear anywhere. With dozens of verification/audit siblings in the namespace, the complete absence of routing guidance leaves selection to guesswork.

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