build_chapter_revision_comparison

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

The description declares the tool is 'read-only' and produces a 'revision report', which implies no side effects. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks important behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling for missing files, or performance characteristics.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be improved with structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) for better readability.

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?

Without output schema or parameter explanations, the description leaves significant gaps. For a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings, the minimal contextual information is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters (project_dir, chapter, before_file, after_file, format, include_context). Users must infer their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 tool's function: 'compare before and after draft readiness for a read-only revision report with resolved, new, and remaining issues.' It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('draft readiness'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'build_chapter_readiness' and 'diff_chapter_contract' by focusing on revision comparison.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Despite many sibling tools, it fails to mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues for selection.

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