Check Plot Consistency

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that it returns issues found, but does not provide additional behavioral context such as pagination, performance, or error conditions. The description does not contradict 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 two sentences: the first defines the action and output, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words, earning 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions returning issues and documents involved, but does not specify the structure or format of those issues. It also does not highlight the async parameter or its effect. However, for a scanning-focused tool, the core behavior is adequately described.

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 input schema covers both parameters (async and documents) with full descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the async option's implications or document formats. With high coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: scan documents for plot-level inconsistencies (timelines, contradicted facts, dropped threads). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use this tool versus check_consistency or analyze_writing_style, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for story/plot coherence across chapters' and contrasts with alternatives: 'use check_consistency for general consistency checks or analyze_writing_style for prose-level analysis.' This clearly instructs when to use or avoid the tool.

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