reaffirm_template

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that the artifact is also shipped inside the @gemmein/sdk package and the required installation steps (copy next to the app, set the CONFIG block, run in CI). It does not mention auth requirements or any limits on the live checks it performs, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the use case and the artifact identity, followed by installation steps and the sibling alternative. A few phrases ('the ready-to-edit harness that re-proves the app's boundaries') lean promotional, but no sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent receives and what to do with it, and it does so: a named file, its source, and the steps to adopt it. Auth and any runtime prerequisites for the harness itself remain unspecified, which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter fetch.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly presents it as a no-argument artifact fetch with no inputs to configure. There is nothing to document beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the concrete artifact ('reaffirm.mjs, the ready-to-edit harness') and states its purpose: re-proving the app's boundaries against live Gemmein on every deploy. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling check_integration by contrasting an installable file with a one-off check, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('when you wire up the app's CI, or when you hand the finished app to your human') and explicitly routes the alternative case ('For a one-off check right now, call check_integration'). This is a clear when/when-not/alternative statement.

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