check_junctions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the measurement mechanism, the interpretation of thinning percentages, the grouping logic, the all-masters default when master_id is omitted, and the important side-effect behavior: colors are not modified by default, but mark_glyphs=True marks glyphs red/green. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with no 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?

The description is well front-loaded with the purpose and metric definition, and the structured Args section is easy to parse. It loses a point because some information is repeated: 'If master_id is omitted, analyzes ALL masters' duplicates the Args line 'empty = all masters', and the mark_glyphs color behavior is stated twice. Still, every section earns its place overall.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no required inputs, an output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers default glyph lists, default master behavior, the meaning of the reported percentage, consistency-group semantics, the absolute-value exclusion, and the color side effect. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters, and it does. The Args section spells out glyph_names default values, master_id's empty-means-all-masters semantics, and mark_glyphs' verdict-coloring effect. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check junction thinning consistency across related glyphs.' It then concretely explains the measurement technique (horizontal rays at multiple heights), the metric (thinning %), and the comparison groups (n≈m, b≈p, d≈q), making its scope unmistakable and distinct from siblings like measure_stems or check_related_forms.

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 when-not guidance: it 'Does NOT flag based on absolute values' and 'Only flags inconsistencies between related forms,' which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It also explains master_id default behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as measure_stems or compare_stems, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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