meta_check_coherence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'check' by specifying the possible verdicts and the important warning semantics for `unreachable` and `single_source`, which is non-obvious. It does not discuss side effects, but as a read-only check that is reasonably implied.

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 short, front-loads the main purpose, and uses a compact verdict list plus a warning note. The only minor issue is the cryptic '§4' reference, which is terse but may require external context.

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?

The core purpose and output verdicts are covered, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure. However, key gaps remain: the `detail` parameter is unexplained, and there is no guidance on choosing this tool over its siblings.

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 description clarifies that `object_name` is the object whose sources are checked, but it says nothing about the `detail` boolean parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but only explains one of the two parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether all sources agree') on a specific resource (`object_name`), and enumerates the possible verdicts. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the verb and resource make the purpose clear enough.

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 usage is implied by 'Check whether all sources agree' — the agent can infer it is for consistency checking across sources. However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this tool over `meta_list_sources` or `meta_compose`, nor any exclusions.

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