Verify Contract

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains that the tool mutates nothing, never raises on failing checks, and returns failure rows instead. It also describes the return shape and the workflow benefit (local catch vs post-merge failure), which is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations alone cannot provide.

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 dense but efficiently organized: purpose first, then usage guidance, then parameter details, then return value. Every sentence adds information, and the structured layout makes the long content scannable. It is long because the tool is complex, not because of 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?

Given the complex nested parameterstons and sparse schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what each contract key means, how failures are represented, and what is returned. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return shape documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains 'handle' and each contract slice ('envelope', 'interfaces', 'features', 'intent'), including nested structure, optional fields, tolerance semantics, and examples. This is far more than the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: a build-time self-check of a component against its manifest slice. It also distinguishes this tool from the later merge/gate workflow, making its scope explicit. The contrast between local self-check and post-merge failure is a strong differentiation signal.

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 gives explicit context: a builder calls this on their own part before save, and it is safe to call in a loop because failures return passed=False rather than raising. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the 'before save / own part' guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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