generate_requirement_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool automatically generates a detailed requirements document with specific sections, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the output format, whether a file or text is returned, or any side effects.

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 immediately names the verb and resource, then adds the key inputs and output contents. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 straightforward and its parameters are fully described in the schema, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what kind of artifact or content the agent should expect in return. The missing relationship to generate_functional_spec also leaves a gap in an otherwise adequate description.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds modest value by naming projectName, purpose, and background as generation inputs, but it does not clarify how constraints or targetUsers influence the output beyond their schema descriptions.

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 a specific action and resource: generating a requirements definition document (要件定義書), and lists the inputs (project name, purpose, background) and output contents (functional requirements, non-functional requirements, constraints). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool generate_functional_spec, but the resource name itself helps differentiate.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus generate_functional_spec, and no exclusions or conditions. Since a closely related sibling tool exists, the lack of selection guidance leaves the agent to infer the boundary between requirement specs and functional specs.

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