Conformance Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that it runs against the live kernel and returns verdicts, which is consistent. No contradictions; the description provides modest additional context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, effectively conveying the tool's essence in minimal space.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description explains the purpose and outcome. However, it lacks details about the nature of the three checks (transport, session, governance) and does not address the input parameters, making it incomplete for full understanding.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters (payload, _envelope, client_capabilities) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no guidance on what these parameters are for, leaving the agent uninformed. Even though all are optional, the lack of parameter semantics is a critical gap.

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 it runs the ARIF Conformance Spine against the live kernel and returns pass/fail verdicts for transport, session, and governance checks. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools with different purposes (e.g., health checks, judgment).

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 description implies use for conformance testing via 'PROOF MACHINE' and specifies the checks performed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, though the context is clear enough.

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