implementation_parallel_check

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tolerance rule (zero tolerance), the handling of undeclared figures (not_asserted, never green), and the side effect of re-running (voiding tieout/parallel_run_close sign-off). It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or reversibility of the operation, but for a read/comparison tool these are less critical. It is fairly transparent given no 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 dense and information-rich, with each sentence serving a purpose: it states the operation, the sources, the output format, the tolerance policy, the handling of missing declarations, and the side effect of re-running. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. It is structured logically and not overly verbose for the complexity.

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 complex tool involving computation and comparison, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, the output structure, tolerance rules, missing-declaration behavior, and re-run side effects. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., that declarations must exist or that read models are populated), but it is fairly complete. Since there is no output schema, the inclusion of the output format is helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, it does not explain workspaceId, projectId, period, or idempotencyKey beyond mentioning 'period' in the context of the computation. It does not define period format, idempotencyKey usage, or how workspace/project are used. This is a significant gap since the schema provides no descriptions either.

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's purpose: it computes TILL's own figures from specific read models (A08, A07, A16/A17) and compares them to declared figures. It names the exact sources and the comparison action, and it provides the output shape. This distinguishes it from siblings like implementation_parallel_declare (which declares figures) and implementation_parallel_status (which likely just returns status).

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 gives explicit conditions: ZERO tolerance, a 0-Rappen difference passes, ANY nonzero fails, and a figure with no declaration is not_asserted. It also warns that re-running with changed evidence voids sign-offs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', though the context implies this is the check operation vs. declaration or status. It does mention a gate on manage_implementation, which is a precondition.

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