redcon_quality_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs a shell command and performs compression and quality verification, but does not mention potential destructive actions of the command, authentication needs, or the structure of the verdict. While it adds context beyond schema, it lacks depth in 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core action, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, and a specific quality harness), the description is insufficient. It does not describe the verdict output, the meaning of quality_floor, or the harness rules beyond a brief mention. An agent would lack critical details to use the tool effectively.

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 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any parameter semantics beyond the implied 'command'. There is no mention of cwd, quality_floor, timeout, etc. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool runs a shell command, compresses its output, and verifies against the M8 quality harness. It distinguishes from sibling redcon_run by noting the use case for obtaining a verdict before consuming compressed bytes. The verb 'run', 'compress', and 'verify' plus the specific harness context make the purpose precise.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool instead of redcon_run ('when you want a verdict before consuming the compressed bytes') and mentions the response is small and structured. This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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