Get Portal Readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the return shape includes 'blockers' and 'warnings', and each problem carries a code and overridability flag. It doesn't detail what happens on error or how many issues max, but given the annotation coverage, the description contributes meaningful context beyond structured data.

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, zero filler. It front-loads the return shape, explains what each problem carries, and gives an actionable instruction ('Check before publishing'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter, strong annotations, a clear return shape, and no output schema or nested objects. The description adequately covers purpose, output structure, and usage timing. It could mention how to identify portals (e.g., via kilango_list_portals) for completeness, but for a tool of this complexity the description is near-complete.

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 only 1 parameter (portalRef) and 0% schema description coverage, the schema is bare. The description notes it operates 'for a portal', implying portalRef identifies the target. While it doesn't explicitly explain portalRef's format (like whether it's an ID or a reference string), the name itself ('portalRef') plus the description's reference to 'a portal' provides reasonable semantics for a single-parameter tool. The baseline for a 1-param tool with minimal schema coverage and a clear purpose is fairly high.

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 readiness assessment for a portal with a specific structure ({ ready, blockers[], warnings[] }). It distinguishes itself from siblings like kilango_get_portal (which presumably fetches portal details) by focusing on 'readiness' for publishing and 'check before publishing' hints at its gatekeeping role. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, though the publish-related sibling (kilango_publish_portal) provides natural context.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Check before publishing' implies when to use this tool (as a pre-publish gate). This implicitly contrasts with kilango_publish_portal and other get_* tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use language or named alternatives, but the publish-context cue is reasonably informative for a read-only checklist tool.

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