chapter_status

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses that the tool reads local file existence (no side effects). It is transparent about what status information is reported. However, it could improve by mentioning potential behaviors like missing files or permissions, but the current disclosure is sufficient for a read-only tool.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences: one for the core purpose and one listing what is reported. The Args section is clearly structured with examples. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (status check with two required parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It explains what files are checked and the parameters needed. No missing aspects are critical, though error cases or output format details could be added but are not required due to the output schema.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing examples and clarifying that 'book' is a directory name and 'chapter_number' is a simple integer. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles, which already hint at the parameter purpose. For two parameters, this level of detail is adequate.

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: 'Get the status of all lang/level combos for a chapter' and specifies exactly which files are checked (chapter.md, audio, marks, translations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like alignment, sanity checks, or metadata updates.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over others like 'chapter_release_sanity_check' or 'validate_marks'. This lack of context reduces its helpfulness for agent decision-making.

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