Marker Parity (source vs rendered)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and meets it: deterministic, no LLM, exit 6 on violation, case-sensitive matching, and two false-positive traps (case mismatch and deliberate subset rendering). The concrete TRIPWIRE example makes the matching behavior unambiguous.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph stays dense with useful caveats. The 'TRIPWIRE:' sentence is cryptic and slightly interrupts the flow, preventing a 5.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, it covers the main behavior, exit status, matching mode, and practical verification steps. It does not state the success exit condition or the full return/result shape, and it leaves profile/marker interplay to the schema, but the description is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 covers all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by instructing users to choose markers with stable casing and by warning that a deliberate subset render legitimately under-counts, which directly informs how markers, source, and rendered should be used.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: check that source artifact markers survive into every rendered output. The title and examples further establish it as a parity/consistency verifier, and the explicit case-sensitivity contrast with lens_consistency_leaks sets it apart from siblings.

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 gives clear operational context: use markers with stable casing, and verify doubtful hits case-insensitively before reporting. It names lens_consistency_leaks as the case-insensitive alternative, though it never explicitly says 'use this tool when...' or lists exclusion conditions.

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