check_consistency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the master document is not modified ('正本は変えない') and that nonexistent names return a list of existing scopes rather than an error. This discloses important edge-case behavior and the read-only character of the operation. It could add more about error conditions or the meaning of '直し先', but the core behaviors are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action and non-mutation guarantee come first, followed by a concise scope specification. Every sentence earns its place, and the edge-case behavior is included without bloat.

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 low complexity, one optional parameter, and the presence of an output schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers the parameter semantics, the non-destructive nature, and the unusual invalid-name behavior. No critical information appears to be missing.

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 schema tells the agent almost nothing about the scope parameter: it is simply a nullable string with a default. The description compensates fully by defining the exact accepted values, what each value selects, and the behavior for invalid names. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the dimension asks for.

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 the operation: apply the master document to constraints and return a list of violations with fix targets, while explicitly noting the master is not changed. This is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings such as get_positioning or revise_package.

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 clear guidance on the scope parameter values: omitted or '全体' means the whole master, a medium name selects that medium, and a presentation file name selects that item. It also explains the behavior for nonexistent names. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the input guidance is strong.

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