build_agent_startup_prompt

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or what 'copy-ready' entails. With no annotations, more detail is needed.

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 clear sentence with no fluff. However, it could briefly mention key parameters like chapter or platform without becoming verbose.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It tells the purpose but not how to use it effectively or what output to expect.

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 description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (mode, format, chapter, platform, etc.). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain how to configure the tool.

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 verb 'Build', the resource 'copy-ready read-only startup prompt', and the context 'for a local desktop agent starting or taking over a target chapter.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_agent_activity_report and build_chapter_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 implies usage context (agent startup/takeover) but does not provide explicit when-not or alternative tools. Siblings like build_chapter_context or build_desktop_next_step could be alternatives, but no guidance is given.

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