check_compatibility

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that it does NOT modify glyph colors by default, and only marks when mark_glyphs=True. It explains the color coding (red, orange, green). This is strong for an unannotated tool, though it could mention side effects on glyph colors more prominently.

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 well-structured with a recipe hint, a detailed but bulleted list of checks, and a clear args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and recipe. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 an output schema present (indicated in context), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the main checks, the side-effect behavior, and the recipe. For a checking tool with two optional params, this is 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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains glyph_names (optional list of glyphs, default all) and mark_glyphs (color by verdict only when requested). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't specify the format of glyph_names (list of strings) which is clear from 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 it checks master compatibility across all glyphs, listing specific checks (paths, components, anchors) and verdict meanings (red, orange, green). This distinguishes it from related tools like analyze_kerning or check_overshoots.

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 an explicit recipe: call get_recipe('master_compatibility') first for a complete pre-export check. This is a clear when-to-use instruction and references a specific alternative workflow. It also explains when mark_glyphs should be used, clarifying the default behavior.

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