tteop_run_conformance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool runs and what it returns ('pass/fail counts and detailed results'), covering the main behavioral contract. It does not mention side effects or failure modes, but for a zero-parameter test runner this is a solid disclosure.

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?

A single sentence, purpose-led, with a compact colon-delimited list of coverage areas. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every listed item adds specificity.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the suite covers and what the caller receives (pass/fail counts and detailed results). Nothing essential is missing for invoking 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description needs to add no per-parameter meaning. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the TTEOP conformance suite') and enumerates the checks covered: canonical vector invariants, zero-input semantics, missing-cache handling, round-trip, forbidden field detection, and banker's rounding. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that validate, build, or describe a single envelope.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The intended scope ('conformance suite') and sibling names (tteop_validate_envelope, tteop_build_envelope, tteop_describe_protocol) make the use case inferrable, but the description itself leaves that routing implicit.

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