plate_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does this well: it discloses what counts are performed, the specific tells that get flagged, what is reported for PNGs, and the unknown fallback behavior. It does not describe the exact output format or whether any state changes occur, but for a checker tool the main behaviors are clearly surfaced.

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 compact, front-loaded with the critical usage warning, and uses a clean conditional structure for HTML versus PNG inputs. Every sentence adds operational value without redundancy.

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 gives enough context for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: it covers both input branches, enumerates the tells, and states the unknown fallback. However, with no output schema, the return format is unspecified, and the description only mentions .png while the schema also allows .jpg, leaving a small but real gap.

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?

The input schema already covers the single path parameter 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that the path must point to an output file, not a prompt, and that .html and .png are the relevant file types. It does not fully mention the schema's .jpg allowance, but the added guidance still improves the agent's understanding.

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 a specific verb and resource: it checks output artifacts (.html or .png) for web tells and dead frames. It is distinctive enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like plate_inspect, so it stops short of a 5.

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 instruction 'Run it on the output, never on the prompt' provides explicit context for when this tool should be used, and it also specifies the accepted input types (.html and .png). It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond 'never on the prompt', so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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