build_proposal_readiness

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

The description labels the tool as 'read-only', which suggests no side effects, but lacks details on what the readiness gate entails (e.g., checks performed, error behavior, or output structure). With no annotations, the description fails to adequately 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and context. It is appropriately sized but could benefit from brief parameter explanations without becoming lengthy.

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 4 parameters (one required, one enum, a nested object) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how results are returned or what constitutes a successful readiness check, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'saved or inline' proposals, vaguely linking to 'proposal_id' and 'updates', but does not explicitly define any parameter's role. The enum for 'format' and the nested object are 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 states the action ('Build') and the resource ('readiness gate for a saved or inline post-write proposal before durable apply'), which is specific enough to distinguish from siblings that deal with chapters or reports. However, the term 'readiness gate' is somewhat abstract, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_proposal' or 'build_proposal_review'. The context of 'before durable apply' is implied but not explicitly stated as a usage condition.

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