chamber_check

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: enumerates all six verdicts, states the check is deterministic and model-free, explains that STALE notes are not judged, and details what record=true actually does (commits through Chamber's gate, may run the embedder, pins sources for later chamber_verify drift detection). The 'read-only unless record is true' framing is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then layered detail. It is dense and somewhat run-on with stacked parentheticals, but nearly every clause carries distinct information (verdicts, limitations, record semantics) rather than filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating every verdict string the caller will see and describing the record side effect. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the three accepted source forms (absolute path, file.md#pN ref, passage id) and, crucially, what record=true commits and how the resulting beliefs are pinned and later checked. That is more than the schema's terse property descriptions provide.

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+resource: checking the agent's own claims against the user's notes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming chamber_ask as a source of refs and chamber_verify as the drift-check consumer, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('check your own claims ... before you state them') and clarifies the read-only default versus record=true. It also gives a clear when-not: it does not check meaning, so negated claims pass. No direct 'use X instead of Y' exclusion, but the context is strong.

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