check_write_session

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

The description states it is 'read-only' and performs specific checks. Without annotations, this is the primary behavioral disclosure. However, it does not explain failure behavior, return format, or required permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with key information, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., pass/fail, error details) and only partially covers parameter semantics, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain each parameter. It mentions three (expected_project_id, expected_state_sha256, expected_context_hash) but omits others like 'format', 'chapter', and 'project_dir'. The required 'project_dir' is not explained, limiting usefulness.

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 is a 'Read-only preflight' that checks project_id, state sha256, and optional chapter context hash. It identifies the resource (.novel-agent state) and the action (checks). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_chapter', leaving some ambiguity.

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 phrase 'before writer tools mutate .novel-agent state' implies when to use this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar checks. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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