check_related_forms

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well by explicitly stating that glyph colors are not modified by default and that mark_glyphs=True is required for color marking. It also discloses the default all-masters scope, giving agents a clear picture of the tool's side effects.

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-organized with a clear opening, bulleted pair rules, and an Args section. There is minor redundancy: the all-masters behavior and mark_glyphs color behavior are each stated twice. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose.

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 two-parameter analysis tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, default scope, and mutation behavior. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no additional return-format detail is necessary.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: master_id is optional with empty meaning all masters, and mark_glyphs only colors glyphs when explicitly requested. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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: 'Cross-validate related figures and letters,' immediately establishing what the tool does. It then lists precise pair rules (six ≈ nine, zero < O, etc.), which clearly differentiates it from generic sibling checks like compare_proportions or check_compatibility.

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 contextual guidance by enumerating exactly which width-ratio relationships are checked and noting that omitting master_id analyzes all masters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use case is clear.

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