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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds key behavioral context: it explicitly states 'does not read model, prompt, source, token, or credential contents' and 'does not mutate files.' This goes beyond the hints by specifying what is not read and what is not mutated, which is valuable for the agent. No contradiction with 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 a single, concise sentence that states purpose, scope, and key behavioral constraints. It is front-loaded with the action ('return a bounded asset projection') and includes critical exclusions. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (which presumably describes the return projection), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The tool is simple (1 optional parameter) and has strong annotations. The description covers behavior and constraints well. It is complete enough for the agent to understand what the tool does and what it avoids. The only minor gap is not providing more context on when to use it vs. siblings, but given the simplicity, a 4 is justified.

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 100%, meaning the schema documents the 'tool' parameter with its enum values. The description adds context by saying 'Optional Core inventory tool selector,' but this is largely redundant with the schema's 'Optional Core inventory tool selector' description. Since the schema already covers the parameter well, the description adds minimal extra meaning, but it does reinforce the optionality, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns a 'bounded asset projection' using 'AI Disk Doctor's existing metadata-only model inventory with Core defaults.' It specifies the resource (model inventory) and the action (return a projection), which is clear enough. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like scan_summary or core_status, though the resource and action are specific enough to imply differentiation.

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 implies usage by stating it uses 'Core defaults' and an optional tool selector, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It doesn't say when to use this tool vs. siblings, but the context of a metadata-only inventory is somewhat clear. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.

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

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

The description adds contextual detail beyond the annotations by listing specific aspects checked (availability, command surface, semantic version, compatibility provenance) and explicitly reaffirms non-invasive behavior. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description enhances rather than contradicts them.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys all essential details without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the sentence is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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?

Given the tool is low-complexity (no parameters) and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool checks (availability, command surface, version, provenance) and its side-effect-free nature. It is complete for an information-only status check.

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 tool has no parameters and the schema is fully covered. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description is not expected to elaborate on them, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Check') with a specific resource ('local AI Disk Doctor Core availability, required command surface, semantic version, and compatibility provenance'). It differentiates from sibling tools like scan_summary and ai_model_inventory by emphasizing it does not scan or modify files.

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 implies this is a safe read-only status check but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives. It notes it avoids scanning and modifying, which hints at contrast with scan_summary, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no contradictory information; it explains that the tool uses Core-owned semantics and the `--latest --json` options, which is additional context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe side effects because there are none.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and immediately state the key constraint (no paths accepted). Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (though not detailed), and annotations cover safety traits, the description is complete for its purpose. It might benefit from clarifying the return format, but the output schema presumably handles that, so this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning no parameters need explanation. The description clarifies the inherent behavior (using latest snapshot and JSON output) without needing to describe parameter semantics, so it adequately handles the absence of parameters.

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 the tool performs 'Core-owned latest snapshot discovery and diff semantics' via the `aidisk diff --latest --json` command, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it uses Core-owned semantics and does not accept paths or reports directories.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the model needs the latest diff using Core-owned discovery. It explicitly notes that no reports directory or paths are accepted, which guides usage, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as scan_summary or ai_model_inventory.

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

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

Description goes beyond annotations by explicitly disclosing non-destructive behavior, no mutation of user files, and potential snapshot persistence under .aidisk/reports. Annotations have readOnlyHint: false, but description clarifies safety profile, adding significant value.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, scope, side effects, and safety. No redundant phrasing or filler; carefully front-loaded with the core action and outcome.

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 single optional parameter tool with output schema present, description covers purpose, return projection, side effects, and guarantees about user files. Includes relevant environmental detail (CLI snapshot). Complete enough for agent to safely invoke.

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 only parameter 'category' has full schema description (100% coverage) explaining it as an optional Core rule category filter with bounds validation. The tool description does not add extra semantics, but schema already provides adequate meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Run' with clear resource 'AI Disk Doctor's existing non-destructive scan' and states output 'bounded projection of Core JSON evidence'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (core_status, ai_model_inventory, latest_diff) by focusing on scan execution and non-destructiveness.

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?

States when to use (run scan) and provides context about non-destructive nature, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools are present, but no comparative guidance given. Clear purpose implies usage context, but no exclusions.

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