apizr_readiness

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description only needs to add context. It does: the warning that a nonzero exit_code is business evidence rather than a server failure preempts a real misreading of results, which annotations cannot convey. It still omits auth/permission or runtime expectations.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then the non-obvious exit_code interpretation. Neither sentence is filler and the critical caveat is not buried.

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 present, return-value detail is correctly left out, and the exit_code note usefully frames the output. The single documented-behavior gap is the undocumented parameter, which is minor at this complexity level.

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?

There is one parameter, expected_repository_digest, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never references it. Nothing explains what digest to supply, why a pinned repository digest matters, or what happens when it is omitted, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 concrete verb (assess) and a specific resource (the startup project's readiness under the startup policy), which is a distinct activity from apizr_analyze and apizr_plan_exposure. It stops short of naming how it differs from those siblings, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus apizr_analyze or apizr_plan_exposure, nor any prerequisites for running a readiness evaluation. The only usage signal is the restated purpose itself, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

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