build_chapter_revision_prompt

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

The description states the tool is 'read-only' and 'copyable', which implies no state modification. However, no annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites, or output behavior beyond being a prompt.

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 of 14 words, front-loading the main action. It is concise, though the use of unqualified jargon slightly reduces clarity. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details about the prompt's format, how the 'local desktop agent' uses it, and the role of each parameter. More context is needed for proper 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%, and the description fails to explain any of the five parameters. Terms like 'chapter readiness', 'revision_plan', and 'fact_context' are mentioned but are not parameter names. The meaning of 'file', 'format', 'include_context', etc., remains unexplained.

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 specifies the verb 'Build', the resource 'revision prompt', and the input sources (chapter readiness, revision_plan, fact_context). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'build_chapter_context' by focusing on revision prompts. However, it could be more specific about the output format or use case.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like 'build_chapter_context' and 'build_chapter_readiness', the agent must infer the appropriate context without any usage notes or exclusions.

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