workbench_prepare_feature

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool validates and 'preserves local inputs,' but does not explain what preservation means, whether there are side effects, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like.

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 short and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence points to external references, which is helpful but slightly reduces self-containedness. Overall, no words are wasted.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a free-form spec object, the description leaves too much unspecified. The tool cannot be correctly invoked based solely on this description, and it defers critical schema details to the README and capabilities rather than including them.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'spec' is an open object with additionalProperties true. The description only labels it as a feature specification, without providing structure, expected fields, or examples, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('validate') and identifies a clear resource ('feature specification'), and also mentions the additional behavior of preserving local inputs. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling workbench_prepare, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this tool is used when you need to validate a feature specification, and it directs the agent to capabilities and README for schemas. But it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as workbench_prepare, and no exclusion criteria or prerequisites are stated.

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