prd_check_api_refs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's function (verifying references and catching typos) but does not specify behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, what output format to expect, or consequences of invalid inputs. This is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and include a benefit statement. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema. The description explains the goal and result (catches typos/invalid paths) but omits details about return format, error handling, or what happens when both parameters are provided. It is adequate but not fully complete for a check tool.

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 100% with basic descriptions for prd_id and content. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how the parameters interact (e.g., mutually exclusive, both optional). Baseline score is appropriate.

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: verifying API endpoint references in a PRD against an OpenAPI spec. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('API endpoint references in a PRD'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like prd_create_template or prd_generate which focus on creation and generation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, mutual exclusivity of parameters (prd_id vs content), or when not to use it. Sibling tools like prd_validate might overlap, but no comparison is provided.

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