check_ready

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the checks performed and, crucially, the meaning of the result (`ready: false` → stop and report). It does not discuss permissions, cost, or failure modes, but it adds genuine behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded as a direct question, followed by the enumeration of checks and the actionable failure rule. Three sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (stop on `ready: false`) is placed last for emphasis without burying the purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns; it does so partially by naming the fields checked and the key `ready` flag semantics. The undocumented `collection` parameter and the absence of detail on the full response shape leave a small gap, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool.

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 coverage is 50%: `ref` is documented in the schema and echoed by the description's gloss of 'initiative (ticket/issue)', but `collection` is undocumented in both places and the description offers no clarification. With half the parameters covered, the description neither compensates nor regresses, so a baseline 3 fits.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it answers whether an initiative is complete and ready, and enumerates the preflight checks it performs (status, dependencies, open questions, acceptance criteria, validation errors). This is far more concrete than a restated name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like `ready` or `validate`, which sound adjacent.

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 establishes usage context ('the preflight the implement and spike briefs start with') and gives one explicit decision rule: `ready: false` means stop and report, don't start. However, it never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so the agent must infer how this differs from `ready` and `validate` in the sibling set.

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