qc_still

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions saving the verdict but does not specify where or if any state is modified, what authorization is needed, or whether the operation is read-only. This lack of detail leaves potential side effects ambiguous.

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, front-loading the purpose and then providing necessary details in a structured bullet-style Args section. No extraneous sentences, though the formatting could be slightly more compact.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how scoring works, pass condition, and post-QC action (re-roll with fix_suggestion). It lacks detail on the return structure but is adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Despite the input schema having 0% parameter descriptions, the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (project, image, shot_id, threshold) with sufficient meaning. The default value for threshold is noted. This compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 style-drift QC on a generated still, scoring intent/look/character on a 0-100 scale and returning a verdict. This verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools (assemble, lock_campaign, plan_shots, project_status), which have different purposes.

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 explains that an agent re-rolls the still when pass is false, using fix_suggestion, implying when to use this tool. Although it doesn't explicitly exclude usage scenarios or compare with alternatives, the context makes the appropriate use case clear.

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