conformance_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only.' which is helpful. Lacks detail on error handling or output specifics beyond 'pass/fail per check'. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 action and technical detail. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, description provides adequate context: purpose, usage, read-only nature, and return value type. Falls short of specifying exact output format but is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, schema coverage 100%). Description adds no parameter info because none needed. Baseline score of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it runs conformance checks (doctor --ci) and returns pass/fail. It identifies the specific resource ('consumer conformance contract') and verb ('run'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'doctor_report' which might have similar purpose.

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 'Use to verify a consumer project's install is fully wired before relying on it', providing clear context for when to invoke. However, no when-not or alternative tool guidance is given.

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