Generate the build blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: it compiles inputs into a blueprint, launches subagents, and advances the project to the build phase. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be in phase 3), side effects beyond state progression, or error conditions, leaving gaps.

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 dense paragraph of three sentences. Each sentence adds value: phase identification, compilation behavior, and parallelization instructions. It is front-loaded with purpose and not overly verbose, though the subagent launching instructions could arguably be trimmed without losing essential clarity.

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 the workflow complexity (parallelization, phase advancement) and lack of output schema, the description explains the tool's role, how to invoke it, and what to do afterward. It is reasonably complete for an agent to act, though preconditions and return values are not specified.

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 50% (workspacePath has a description, projectId does not). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the parameter names are self-explanatory and the tool's role in the workflow implies what they are. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description neither clarifies nor obscures.

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: 'Compiles the description, interview answers and design choices into a build blueprint with parallelizable work packages.' It uses a specific verb ('compiles') and resource ('build blueprint'), and distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools by identifying as Phase 4 of the App Factory workflow.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Phase 4 of the App Factory workflow' and detailed instructions on launching parallel subagents per work package. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the phase-based context and actionable step-by-step guidance make usage clear.

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