PRISM measure

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it reads only the verified local model bundle and supplied input, reaches no network, mutates nothing, and has bounded runtime. It also clarifies its reporting philosophy ('Reports conflict, never truth'), giving a richer picture of what the tool does and guarantees. No contradiction with annotations.

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 distinct value: measurement scope, runtime bound, and safety/philosophy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, uses no filler words, and is highly scannable. Every sentence earns 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?

The description covers purpose, key behavioral constraints, and input cardinality, which is strong given the annotations and existence of an output schema. However, the opaque request parameter is not explained, and there is no guidance on how the tool interacts with sibling tools (e.g., when to use prism.preflight vs this). This leaves some gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has a single opaque request object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage. The description provides a hint that the input involves '2-5 candidate claim packets,' but it does not explain how to structure the request object, what fields are expected, or how the claim packets should be represented. The description insufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Measure') with a precise resource ('contradictions, scope divergence, duplicates, and internal conflicts across 2-5 candidate claim packets'). It clearly distinguishes itself by stating it reports conflict, never truth, which separates it from truth-assessment tools. This is a strong, specific purpose statement.

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 for when to use the tool (to measure conflicts across 2-5 claim packets) and what it guarantees (bounded runtime, no mutation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like prism.preflight or prism.synthesis_contract, so it lacks exclusions but still conveys the tool's niche.

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