DoR breakdown

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: the line-per-conjunct output format, pass/fail evaluation, final result line, and its relationship to the resume/status workflow.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function and output shape, followed by actionable usage context. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns, when to invoke it, and how it relates to the surrounding workflow. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The single parameter id is fully documented in the schema with the description 'work item id W-NN', so the schema carries the semantic weight. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'one work item', which is consistent but not augmentative.

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 action and object: it produces a Definition-of-Ready breakdown for one work item, with one line per conjunct, pass/fail status, and a final result line. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ready, status, and resume.

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 explicitly says to run it before resume to confirm a work item is startable, and it names set status=progress as an alternative that consults the same conjuncts. This gives concrete when-to-use guidance and points to a related behavior.

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