operational_state_check

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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description adds substantial context: it is ephemeral and writes no Brain OS, repository, issue, memory, decision, plan, evidence, version, or audit record, and it enumerates the result taxonomy (verified/drift/stale/conflict/unavailable) with evidence pointers. It also clarifies that decision context is never verified as fact.

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 core purpose and the non-persistence guarantee are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently covers the ephemeral behavior. It is dense with internal jargon ('Brain OS', 'allowlisted') but wastes little; a mild trim would help.

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 usefully describes the return categories and evidence pointers, and it covers the non-mutating guarantee. The remaining gap is operational detail on freshness/TTL handling, but overall an agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 50% and the description adds semantic framing for the parameter groups (optional claimed vs desired state, decision context kept separate as human judgment). However it does not explain the freshness/observed_at mechanics or the claim-vs-observed evidence distinction beyond what the schema descriptions already carry, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it reads an allowlisted set of live repository facts (package name/version, Git branch/HEAD) and compares them to claimed/desired state, returning categorized results. The 'Verified Operational State checker' framing plus the enumerated fact set makes it clearly distinct from siblings like decision_check, memory_check, and audit_log.

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 when the tool applies (checking live repo facts against claims/desired state) and notes claims/desired_state are optional, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings such as decision_check or project_evidence_scan, nor any explicit exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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