build_chapter_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool builds context but doesn't explain what 'chapter-safe context' means, side effects, authorization needs, or data modifications. Details are insufficient.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information that could be included without verbosity. It is not a model of efficiency because it sacrifices completeness.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the return value, behavior, and prerequisite steps. It fails to do so, leaving agents with significant ambiguity about what the tool produces and how to use it.

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 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters: it doesn't explain 'project_dir', 'chapter', or 'format' beyond what the schema already shows. The schema provides enum for format, but description offers no guidance.

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 uses specific verb 'build' and resource 'chapter-safe context', indicating it constructs context for a chapter. The phrase 'before writing or revising' adds context, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like build_chapter_context_brief, which may overlap in purpose.

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 before writing or revising, but provides no guidance on when not to use the tool or which alternative to choose from the many sibling tools. Usage context is vague.

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