draft_problem_statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it details the exact return contents, guarantees that nothing is invented, and documents ValueError for invalid theme_id. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, leaving a small gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns/error structure keeps the information organized. The longer return-value sentence is justified because it enumerates the generated statement's contents and includes the no-hallucination guarantee; there is no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input source, output semantics, and failure mode. The only notable omissions are explicit read-only/side-effect behavior and guidance on sibling selection, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully defines theme_id by giving its provenance (returned by list_themes) and a concrete example ('theme-01'), adding real meaning beyond the bare string type in 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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Draft a structured, PRD-style problem statement for one theme.' The detailed output description (who is affected, evidence, frequency, success metric) makes clear this is a synthesis tool, distinct from siblings like list_themes, get_theme, search_feedback, and severity_summary.

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 implies usage by saying theme_id comes from list_themes and by framing the tool as a problem-statement generator for one theme. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_theme or severity_summary, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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