reconciliation_board

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

Discloses that the tool returns suggestions for confirmation, implying a read-only operation. No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility, and it adequately conveys the behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, no wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the purpose and content of the tool. It references the sibling tool for actions, making it contextually complete.

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?

No parameters to document, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds meaningful context about what the board contains, which adds value beyond the trivial schema.

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 states 'Get the reconciliation board: suggested movement<->document matches.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like reconcile_movement.

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?

Explicitly explains that the system auto-reconciles matches with confidence >= 0.95, and suggests using reconcile_movement or dismiss for lower-confidence matches. Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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