Check Carve publishing targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces a non-mutating behavior by saying it 'returns' warnings, losses, and fallbacks. This adds useful context about the output granularity without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with the operation, scope, and result type front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or duplication of schema content.

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 two simple parameters, read-only annotations, and an existing output schema, the description gives agents enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It specifies exactly which targets are involved and what kind of results will be returned.

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 coverage is only 50%, with `targets` lacking a description, but the description compensates partially by enumerating the profile names and saying results are target-specific. It still does not explain the source format, the default target behavior, or how errors are handled, so the extra semantic value is moderate.

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 a specific verb ('Compare'), a specific resource ('one Carve document'), and explicit profile targets ('HTML, Markdown, plain text, ANSI, GitHub, WordPress, and PDF-stage'), and the outcome ('warnings, losses, fallbacks') is clear. It also stands apart from mutation/render siblings because it only returns assessment data rather than transforming or rendering.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: when you need to compare a single Carve document across multiple target profiles and see target-specific issues. It gives strong context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as carve_render or carve_lint.

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