build_chapter_delivery_packet

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

The description mentions 'read-only' which hints at non-destructive behavior, but with no annotations, it lacks explicit disclosure of side effects, permissions, or response format. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the core purpose concisely, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format or the meaning of 'combined' in practical terms. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 describe any parameters (file, format, chapter, project_dir, include_context) despite 0% schema coverage. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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 action 'Build' and the specific resource 'read-only author delivery packet'. It lists the components combined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'build_handoff_report' and 'build_chapter_readiness'.

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 for building an author delivery packet by combining various elements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_handoff_report' or 'build_chapter_context'. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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