get_case_readiness

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: two classes served by the same skill count as one source, the hardware class is never reachable in this family, and the knowledge class only activates with entries under $OPS_HOME/knowledge/. These are real traps an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with a [READ] tag and WHEN/RETURNS/GOTCHAS sections, which makes scanning easy. There is mild redundancy: unrecognised_skills behavior is explained in both the RETURNS block and the parameter schema, and the category enumeration is lengthy, but the structure earns its length for a no-output-schema tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does: field names, the rationale for unstructured ceilings over a single score, and an explicit statement that no aggregate score exists. Combined with the gotchas, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 100% and the single optional parameter's aliasing rule ('monitor' vs 'vmware-monitor') and omit-behavior are already documented in the schema. The description restates the unrecognised_skills consequence rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific, if rhetorically framed, purpose: determining what strength of conclusion the environment can reach. The RETURNS block makes the resource concrete (evidence classes, symptom categories, ceilings). It stops short of naming siblings like grade_case or plan_case, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'readiness' and 'grading' from context.

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?

Explicit WHEN clause gives two triggering conditions: before starting an investigation, and when a case stalls and you want to know if the ceiling is fixable. It even argues the sequencing ('worth far more than discovering it halfway through'). No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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