check_overshoots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it states the default scope, default master behavior, that glyph colors are not modified unless mark_glyphs=True, and the exact color side effect when requested. It also reveals the 1-2% zone-height threshold and the pointed-form exception, which are not inferable from schema or 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 longer than average but well structured with RECIPE, quality criteria, defaults, side effects, and an Args section, so no major filler exists. It could be tightened, but every section earns its place.

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?

For a 3-optional-parameter analysis tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description covers invocation defaults, side effects, scope, and evaluation criteria. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args section is the only semantic source for the parameters. It explains glyph_names, master_id, and mark_glyphs with defaults and behavioral consequences, fully compensating for the bare input 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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'Check overshoot values', which clearly separates it from sibling checks like check_compatibility, check_junctions, and check_related_forms. It further defines the resource by naming round and pointed form categories and giving the optical criteria used.

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 RECIPE line explicitly frames this as a pre-export check within the get_recipe('master_compatibility') workflow, and the defaults sections tell the agent when all glyphs and all masters are included. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions or alternative check_* tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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