check_opening_correspondence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the key side effect of writing `<stem>_openings_check.json` with a specific schema. However, it omits preconditions, failure behavior, and whether any other modifications occur; it only hints at overwrite behavior through a parameter description.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the output artifact specification. It contains no filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name, and every sentence contributes value.

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 presence of an output schema and full input schema lowers the burden, and the description does state the main purpose and output file. However, it lacks practical workflow context—such as the recommended bi-maquette mode and how the results should be interpreted—leaving clear gaps for a moderately complex checking tool.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with meaningful descriptions, including `tolerance_m` and `structure_ifc_path`. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Vérifie' followed by the exact resource and relationship: 'chaque réservation structure a une ouverture archi.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on space boundaries, surfaces, clashes, and surface loss.

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 intended use case is implied by the action ('vérifie que chaque réservation structure a une ouverture archi'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no pointer to sibling tools. The schema notes the recommended bi-maquette mode, but the description itself does not provide this usage context.

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