check_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the core workflow (discover local files, read versions, compare) and the return structure (outdated, unknown, up_to_date_count). However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), authentication needs, or error handling. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, workflow, parameter details, and return structure. It is well-structured and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the output schema is present (context signals indicate true), and the description explains return values in detail. It covers the tool's behavior adequately. Minor omissions like empty input handling or error conditions are acceptable for a read-only compliance check.

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 input schema has one parameter (entries) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by detailing the required fields for each entry (name, type, plugin, local_version) and providing examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies an array of objects.

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 checks locally installed gen-e2 plugin artifacts against the registry for updates. It uses specific verbs ('Check') and resources ('gen-e2 plugin artefacts'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools which are for retrieval or validation.

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 tells when to use this tool ('whenever the user asks to verify, check, or audit'), and provides a workflow including the instruction to not compare versions manually. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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