hcl_parity_report

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that it compares a pinned mapping against current MCP discovery, which is useful context, but it does not explain the nature of the differences, prerequisites, or any behavioral edge cases.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. However, it is front-loaded with the vague term 'pinned mapping,' which makes the core purpose less immediately clear than it could be.

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 an output schema, zero parameters, and rich annotations, much of the necessary context is already provided. The description still leaves 'pinned mapping' undefined and does not clarify what kind of parity report is produced, which matters for a tool with a broad set of similarly named siblings.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the scoring rules. The description correctly does not discuss parameters, and the schema confirms none are needed.

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 specific action ('Read') and a somewhat specific subject ('pinned mapping and API differences against current MCP discovery'), but 'pinned mapping' is undefined and the tool's exact purpose is still vague. It does not clearly differentiate this parity report from siblings such as hcl_capabilities, hcl_validate_plan, or hcl_diff.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and vague description.

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