Prepare a naming research handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states side-effect and access characteristics: 'Read-only and free' and 'Requires the naming:read scope.' It also discloses behavioral boundaries, such as not ranking or scoring candidates, and describes the extent of returned data (up to 100 candidates with evidence). This exceeds what is typical and gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 four sentences long but every sentence earns its place: the first enumerates the payload, the second gives timing guidance, the third sets expectations about non-behaviors, and the fourth covers access and safety. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only context tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what is returned, when to call it, what it avoids, access requirements, and linkage to existing board data. An agent has enough information to invoke it appropriately and anticipate its behavior without surprises.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Owned naming project id from list_naming_projects') and a UUID format. The tool description adds useful context about what the parameter is used for (loading project brief, candidates, etc.), but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Thus the schema-coverage baseline of 3 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 opens with a specific, action-oriented summary: 'Load everything you need to plan naming research in one call,' then enumerates concrete deliverables (project brief, candidates with evidence, available checks, workflow guidance, template). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_naming_projects and generate_names by focusing on consolidating research context rather than creating or listing entities.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'Call it before orchestrating substantial research so you do not re-run checks that already exist on the board.' It also clarifies what the tool intentionally does not do (rank, score, or choose delegation model), preventing misuse. This is strong, actionable guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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