check_chapter

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. It mentions the tool returns issues and a revision_plan but does not disclose whether it modifies any data, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a 'check' tool, read-only behavior is implied but not stated.

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, making it concise, but the long list of checks is dense and could be better structured for readability. It is not overly verbose but could be improved 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 the tool's complexity (checking many aspects) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the format or structure of returned issues or the revision_plan, nor does it explain the checks in sufficient detail for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

Input schema has three parameters with zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain any of the parameters (project_dir, chapter, file) beyond listing the tool's overall function, leaving the agent to infer their meaning and constraints.

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 purpose: checking a chapter file against multiple specific criteria and returning issues plus a revision plan. The verb 'check' and resource 'chapter file' are specific, and the list of checks differentiates it from sibling build tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like build_chapter_readiness or build_chapter_acceptance_plan, there is no explicit differentiation or usage context provided.

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