figure_library_check_project_figure

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral scoping by clarifying that no code is rerun and no scientific validation occurs, which prevents over-reading of a 'check' result. It stops short of describing cost, latency, or failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The positive capability is front-loaded and the negative scoping clause follows immediately, which is exactly the ordering an agent benefits from.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place a return shape could be signaled, and it does not say what a verification result looks like (pass/fail per category, list of mismatches, etc.). The enumerated check categories give partial coverage, but an agent still cannot anticipate the response.

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 description coverage is 0%, so nothing in the structured fields explains figureId beyond its uuid format. The description implies a single-figure scope ('current archive') but never names or characterizes the parameter, leaving the 1-param surface only weakly compensated for.

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?

Specific verb ('Verify') plus an explicit enumeration of the checked surface: archive hashes, required data/script/output roles, sources, execution report, and artwork label state. This clearly separates it from siblings like figure_library_archive_project_figure and figure_library_list_project_figures.

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 second sentence provides a useful boundary ('does not rerun code or validate scientific conclusions'), which tells the agent what this tool will not do. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus adjacent ones such as figure_library_describe, figure_library_source_status, or figure_library_export_diagnostics.

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