check_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the two outcome states and the required next action for each, but it omits important behavior such as whether the tool writes to GitHub, what the post parameter does, and any auth or rate-limit considerations.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and operational branching instructions following. It is efficient, though the second paragraph could be slightly more tightly integrated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value structure need not be explained. However, the description leaves key invocation details incomplete, especially the purpose of repo_path and post, which matter for correct behavior in a tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the issue parameter's accepted formats, but gives no explanation of repo_path or post, leaving two of three parameters undocumented despite post appearing to change side-effect behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether an issue is ready to hand to a coding agent. It distinguishes the tool's role as a pre-work gate, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling predict_footprint.

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 says to use this before starting work on an issue and gives clear branching guidance: if needs_human, ask the returned question; if agent_ready, use footprint files and verify with test_cmd. It does not mention when to prefer, or combine with, predict_footprint.

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