conformance_check

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reiterates 'Read-only,' with no contradiction. It adds behavioral detail by naming the commands executed and stating that results are returned per check, going beyond the annotation's simple safety flag.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, command details, and output type, then a clear usage recommendation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation, return semantics (pass/fail per check), and when to use it. There are no essential gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter information is needed, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Run the consumer conformance contract') and clearly identifies the underlying command (`doctor --ci` plus installed-and-firing checks) and output (pass/fail per check). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like `doctor_report` or `run_tests` by emphasizing verification of a consumer project's install wiring.

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 provides an explicit usage scenario: 'Use to verify a consumer project's install is fully wired before relying on it.' It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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