build_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation ('Create a run') but fails to explain idempotency, side effects, or the meaning of 'record an inspectable context packet.' The circular definition of run_id further obscures behavior.

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 that efficiently communicates the core function with no redundant or extraneous information. It is optimally concise.

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 complexity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several siblings), the description is under-specified. It does not explain what a 'run' is, how it relates to other tools, or what the output looks like, leaving agents without sufficient context.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented chapter_id parameter. It does not; it merely mentions 'one chapter.' The run_id description in the schema is circular, and the tool description adds no clarification.

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 'Create a run and record an inspectable context packet for one chapter,' which clearly identifies the tool's primary action. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_project and generate_draft by focusing on run creation and context recording, but 'inspectable context packet' is somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_project or generate_draft. It does not mention prerequisites, typical invocation order, or scenarios to avoid.

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