write_continuity_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the loading process (target scene, prior 20 scenes, characters, worldbuilding) and output format (JSON list of issues with fields). It does not disclose side effects or performance, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences. It front-loads the signature feature, lists inputs and outputs, and includes a comparative statement. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers inputs, outputs, and purpose. It could mention error handling or more detail on return format, but it is largely complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 67% (sceneId and scopeChapters described). The description adds context by explaining that scopeChapters defaults to 20 and that the tool loads 'prior 20 scenes,' which aligns with the parameter. It does not explicitly explain projectId, but overall the description adds semantic value beyond the schema.

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 performs a 'structural continuity check' and lists specific issue types it outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'NO other writing tool does this — Sudowrite/Grammarly/ProWritingAid are line-by-line, this is structural.' The verb 'check' and resource 'continuity' are precise.

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 clear when-to-use guidance by contrasting with line-by-line tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools. The differentiation from external tools is strong but internal sibling context is absent.

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