check_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mechanism ('Runs diff all via CLI, parses key settings') and the specific ARM mode check, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 three tight sentences with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. The 'Useful after' clause adds practical guidance without redundancy, and there is no filler or repeated information.

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 read-only diagnostic with no parameters, the description covers the source of truth, the method, the scope of checks, and the typical use case. It lacks explicit output format details, but since no output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for tool selection and invocation.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and focuses on the tool's behavior, which is appropriate for a no-argument check command.

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 the specific verb 'Compare' and identifies the exact resources: the FC's actual configuration vs the declared aircraft profile. It distinguishes itself from siblings like apply_aircraft_setup by framing the action as a verification step, and it references define_aircraft() to clarify the source of the declared profile.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Useful after apply_aircraft_setup() or to sanity-check a partially configured FC.' This provides clear contextual guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but the intended timing is well understood.

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