implementation_parallel_check

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the idempotent/non-destructive annotations: zero-tolerance comparison policy, not_asserted handling for undeclared figures, and voiding of bound tieout/parallel_run_close sign-off on changed evidence. The sign-off voiding is a meaningful side effect not captured by annotations, though it reads as workflow-state invalidation rather than data destruction.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core compute-and-compare action is stated first, followed by tolerance rules, declaration semantics, and gating. It is jargon-heavy but each sentence contributes domain rules rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully lists the comparison fields ({kind, ref, declaredRappen, computedRappen, differenceRappen, status}) and explains the pass/fail semantics. However, for a tool with four required but undocumented parameters, it leaves parameter meaning and idempotency-key usage unexplained.

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?

All four required parameters have zero schema description coverage, and the description only implicitly covers 'period' via 'for a period'. workspaceId, projectId, and idempotencyKey are not explained anywhere, so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: compute TILL's own figures from named read models and compare them per figure against declared figures. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the declaration sibling by referencing 'declared figures', but it does not name any sibling tool explicitly.

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?

Provides a permission prerequisite ('Gates on manage_implementation') and a re-run caveat about voiding sign-offs. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus implementation_parallel_declare or implementation_parallel_status, leaving alternatives implicit.

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