build_ntpc_submission_packet

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or data mutations. It merely states it builds a packet checklist, leaving agents unaware of potential impacts or requirements.

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 and is concise, but it is under-specified. It could be trimmed further, but its brevity is not an issue; the lack of content is.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what the packet checklist contains, how parameters affect the output, or any constraints for correct invocation.

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 fails to explain the meanings or valid ranges of the two parameters (jurisdiction and procedure_stage). It only mentions procedure_stage in passing, adding no value beyond the schema's property names.

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 action (build), the specific resource (New Taipei submission/completion packet checklist), and the context (for a procedure stage). It distinguishes itself from siblings like build_law_snapshot or build_sheet_manifest by specifying 'New Taipei' and 'submission/completion packet checklist'.

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, when not to use it, or relationships to sibling tools like build_hitl_confirmation_packet.

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