inkcheck_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as mutability, idempotency, side effects, or error behavior, leaving the agent uninformed about consequences.

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 extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value, no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key usage instruction.

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 13 enumerated operations and a nested request object, plus no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain return values, operation semantics, or error scenarios, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 50%, requiring compensation. The description merely reiterates 'pass the exact operation and request object' without adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose or constraints of the request object or operation enum values.

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 runs 'one post-discovery Inkcheck operation', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like compile_story or inspect_story, though the unique operation set implies differentiation.

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 instructs to call 'inkcheck_capabilities first for required/optional fields', which is a clear prerequisite. But it provides no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives among sibling tools.

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