build_chapter_readiness

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

Declares 'read-only' indicating a non-mutating operation, but lacks details on prerequisites, permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, description fails to sufficiently disclose behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence is concise but dense; could benefit from restructuring for clarity. No wasted words, but could be organized better.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details about the report's format, parameter semantics, and expected output behavior.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no additional meaning for any parameter. The output mention of 'revision_plan' does not clarify parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool builds a read-only author-facing chapter acceptance readiness report from continuity checks and contract diff. It specifies the output includes a revision_plan, distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_chapter_acceptance_plan, though not explicitly.

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?

Implies usage for author's readiness check via 'author-facing', but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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