feature_ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result includes skipped_pending_a_gate alongside the ready list, explains why gates cause skipping, and warns that the worker must announce the skip. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, but the behavioral caveat is unusually rich.

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 bit long but every part contributes: ready criteria, ordering, the skipped list, and the required verbal acknowledgment. Purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat earns its place.

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?

The core concept, return contents, and an important behavioral expectation are covered, which is strong for a worker-facing tool. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of the goal and limit parameters, leaving material gaps for an agent that needs to invoke this tool with non-default arguments.

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?

Only cwd has a schema description, giving 33% coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. The goal and limit parameters are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, so an agent cannot infer how filtering or limiting works.

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 identifies what the tool does: it returns the work that can be worked right now, with explicit readiness criteria and ordering. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like feature_list or gate_queue because it centers on the worker's pull of currently actionable items, though it never explicitly says 'returns feature records' or names an alternative.

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 says 'This is what a worker pulls from,' which gives clear intended usage context for selecting next work. It explains the skipped-gate behavior and why that matters, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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