Check operator availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'survives TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=0' (important for safety), explains the reconciliation process, and the optional inclusion of undocumented optypes. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: main function, optional behavior, single operator usage, and a safety constraint. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema) and good annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers both modes and the constraint. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or what 'flags' means, which would be helpful for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds that omitting operator checks the whole knowledge base and passing one checks only that one, which aligns with the schema's optional nature. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, but not enough to exceed baseline 3.

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 verb 'reconcile' and the resources: 'operator knowledge base' vs 'ground-truth creatable-optype list'. It specifies the exact function: flag documented operators that are creatable vs deprecated/unavailable, and optionally list undocumented live optypes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_operators or validate_operator_chain.

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 provides clear context: use to check availability of operators, optionally for a single operator or the whole knowledge base. It mentions the constraint 'Survives TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=0'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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