deadbolt_check_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description reinforces this with a hard scope boundary: it touches only the installed bundle and performs no execution, operator-state inspection, or security testing. The credential-like caveat about blank operator configuration is additional context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is read and computed first, scope exclusions second, availability condition last. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

With zero parameters, a present output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description needs only to define operation and scope, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call this tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed and nothing about input semantics is ambiguous. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 gives a precise verb chain (read engine + provenance metadata, calculate SHA-256, report compatibility and packaging integrity) against a clearly named resource, the installed bundle. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling deadbolt_get_integration_guide, but the two operations are so distinct that selection is unambiguous.

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?

It states a positive precondition ('Available only when operator configuration is blank') and negative scope ('does not execute the engine, inspect operator state or test security'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and what it will not cover. It stops short of naming an alternative tool when the precondition fails.

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