parity_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool records a result and writes state, unlike parity_gaps, and it emphasizes that the probe is deliberately narrow and not a fix. It also clarifies the recording granularity: what was checked is recorded in each row's detail, which prevents mistaking absence of mention for absence of work.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the third and fourth sentences become philosophical and repetive, re-stating that the probe is narrow and records what checked. The description earns its place overall, but it could be tightened significantly without losing meaning.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide context. It covers the main purpose, a key sibling contrast, and the recording behavior, but it does not state what the return value is, what 'the states' are exactly, or what side effects beyond recording occur. For a tool that appears to write parity state, this is a meaningful gap, though not severe enough to make invocation impossible.

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?

Only one of three parameters (cwd) has schema description, so coverage is low and the description needs to compensate. The description does add meaning to the dimension by saying probes exist for documentation and code and that other dimensions require real checks, which aligns with the dimension enum. However, neither the actor parameter nor the dimension parameter is explained explicitly in the description beyond that indirect reference, and cwd receives no description-level elaboration beyond its schema text.

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 action: run the cheap probe for one dimension across every feature and record the result. It also differentiates from parity_gaps, which is said to only read, making it clearer what parity_scan does that its sibling does not. The phrase 'makes the states real' is somewhat abstract, but the core function and scope are identifiable.

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 explicitly contrast parity_scan with parity_gaps ('parity_gaps only reads; this is what makes the states real'), giving an agent a basis for choosing between them. It also explains that cheap probes are only appropriate for documentation and code, while other dimensions need a real check such as a build or applied migration, effectively stating when not to use this reference-search-like tool.

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