assembly_lock_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it defines each drift category precisely, explains stale as a propagation consequence, and clarifies the meaning of ok. It omits whether the operation is read-only or what permissions it needs, but the semantics strongly imply a non-mutating check.

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?

Written as a compact classification list with a summary of the return object. Front-loaded with the action and outcome. Slightly dense but every line (each drift class) earns its place.

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 2-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates return keys and defines each drift class. The one missing element is the lockfile parameter's optionality/default, which the schema alone does not explain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both parameters (lockfile, manifest) are undocumented. The description references a lockfile and a manifest by name but gives no format, default behavior, or interaction semantics (e.g., that lockfile defaults to null). This is the weak point; it partially compensates but leaves real gaps.

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 (compare) and resources (component files vs lockfile) with an explicit outcome (classification of drift). It does not name or differentiate itself from the two nearest siblings, assembly_lock and validate_manifest, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the classification semantics (the ok flag offers implicit guidance on when a re-merge is safe), but there is no explicit statement of when to run this versus assembly_lock or validate_manifest. The agent must infer the routing.

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