Spr design review

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the review is deterministic, it runs a specific catalog of hydraulic/spec checks, and each finding carries severity, category, location, message, suggested fix, and ids — useful since there is no output schema.

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?

Purpose and the notion of a deterministic review are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the long check list is relevant content rather than padding. The run-on comma list is dense and could be grouped, but almost every item earns its place by telling the agent what the review covers.

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 complex 12-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is reviewed and the shape of each finding, which compensates for the missing output schema. The main gap is the absence of explicit when-to-use routing against sibling verification/calculation tools, but the operational picture is otherwise complete.

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% and all 12 parameters (code, limit, offset, category, language, severity, minSeverity, velocityFail, velocityWarn, defaultFlangeClass, corrosionAllowanceMm, maxNozzlePressureMPa) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds threshold context (standards, pressures, classes) but no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Specification and design-error review of the sprinkler / water-spray network and its design results') and enumerates exactly what is checked. An agent can distinguish this from calculation tools like spr_run_calc or generic validators like validate_project without opening a schema.

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 word 'deterministic' and the enumeration of checks imply this is a post-design audit pass, and the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules]' note routes rule-id lookups to bulc_knowledge_search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like spr_list_summary, spr_get_results, or validate_project, leaving usage to inference.

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