check_deltas

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

The description meaningfully explains what happens: deltas are recomputed, compared, mismatches indicate resolver/engine divergence, and redundant keys are reported separately and are harmless. Since no annotations are present, this behavioral disclosure is valuable, though side effects or read-only status are not explicitly stated.

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 one dense sentence with no filler and front-loads the main purpose. The additional clause about mismatch meaning and harmless redundant keys is useful, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain return format and parameter effects. It explains core semantics well but leaves scope undocumented and does not describe what the tool actually returns or prints.

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 only parameter, scope, is entirely absent from the description. The schema provides a name, type, and default, but not the accepted values or how scope affects behavior. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 a specific action—verify inheritance expansion against the deltas Orca wrote—and explains what the verification does and what a mismatch means. It differentiates itself from siblings like validate or diff_profiles by focusing on whether the resolver expansion matches Orca's own delta records.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate, compare_with_upstream, or diff_profiles. The context is implied by the description but no exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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