check_template_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses read-only behavior, optionality of rule keys, rejection of unknown keys, the exact return shape, resolution through basedOn/docDefaults, and the fact that theme-indirected fonts are never guessed and instead land in 'unverified'.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. The ruleset example is large but necessary because the schema is just an object with additionalProperties true. The description remains focused and ends with a useful 'Read-only.' note.

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 description is complete for a tool of this complexity: it covers the return structure, parameter semantics, resolver behavior, edge cases like unverified fonts, and safety. The output schema is present, and the description's extra return-field detail further strengthens completeness.

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 compensate. It provides a complete ruleset example that gives real meaning to the opaque 'rules' object, and it explains unknown-key handling. The 'file_path' parameter is self-evident from its name and required status.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate the document against a formatting ruleset' with concrete application contexts (university dissertation guide, journal style sheet). This clearly separates it from generic validation and document-checking siblings.

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 usage context is clear: use when a document must be checked against a custom formatting ruleset. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance among the many validation-related sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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