feedback.readiness

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

With no annotations, the description discloses it is objective ('no judge, no images') and deterministic ('order-free + deduped'), suggesting no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential performance implications.

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 but packs jargon ('order-free + deduped', 'objective gates'). It is not overly long but could be restructured for clarity. The front-loaded purpose is somewhat clear.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return format. It mentions 'fraction' but not numeric type or range. The concept of 'gates' is undefined. Given the complexity and lack of schema support, the description is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the two parameters ('object' and 'asset_class'). The meaning of 'objective gates' is unclear in relation to parameters. The description adds no value over the schema.

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 it provides an 'objective game-ready scorecard' as a fraction of gates passed, with 'order-free + deduped'. It distinguishes from siblings like feedback.quality (likely subjective) and feedback.critique (textual). However, the term 'objective gates' is not defined, which may be unclear to non-experts.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for objective game readiness assessment, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling feedback tools.

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