check_readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (whether understanding ≥95%) and a system policy (edits forbidden when false), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read‑only, has no side effects, or what happens if the parameter is out of range. For a simple predicate, this is adequate but leaves some behavioral details implicit.

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 sentence, immediately states the core return condition, and includes the consequential rule. There is zero fluff, and the key information is front‑loaded. Perfectly concise for the tool's 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (what it returns and the implication for code edits). It does not mention additional context like error handling or side effects, but all of that is likely unnecessary for such a simple check. The description is nearly complete, lacking only an explicit note on read‑only behavior.

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% (the description never mentions the parameter by name), so the description must compensate. It indirectly references understanding but does not explicitly explain that 'understanding_pct' is the basis of the check. The schema constraints (0–100) are clear, and the parameter name is self‑explanatory, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 returns a boolean based on whether understanding is ≥95%, and it explicitly ties the result to whether code edits are allowed. This specific outcome distinguishes it from siblings like estimate_context or format_status_footer, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool should be used as a gating check before code edits (since edits are forbidden when ready=false), but it never explicitly says 'use this before editing' or names alternatives. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools or when-not-to-use guidance, only a behavioral consequence.

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