prd_from_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states it fetches issue data and expands into a PRD, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., saves, overwrites), auth requirements, rate limits, or whether operations are read-only.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently covers the core purpose and key steps with no extraneous information.

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 should clarify what is returned. It mentions expanding into a full PRD but does not specify whether it returns the PRD as text, saves to a file, or fits into the AINative platform. Also lacks guidance on error conditions or prerequisites.

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 descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about using a GitHub issue but does not elaborate on parameter values or behavior beyond schema, thus meeting the baseline.

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 explicitly states 'Generate a PRD from a GitHub issue' and details the specific steps (fetching title, body, labels, comments) which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prd_generate or prd_load.

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 vs alternatives like prd_generate or prd_create_template. The purpose implies usage when a GitHub issue is the source, but differentiation from other PRD creation tools is absent.

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