Generate Functional Objectives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well. It explains side effects: refresh=true re-derives from scratch and replaces prior generated content while preserving manually authored content. It also discloses billing, time cost, and the systematic taxonomy-driven process.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a precise definition of the internal concepts, and finishes with operational constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the input requirements, workflow, output nature, side effects, and usage constraints. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and understand its consequences.

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 describes model_id and refresh, and the description adds meaningful depth to refresh by specifying that it replaces prior generated (not manually authored) capabilities, objectives, and tests. However, server_version remains undocumented in both the schema and description, so coverage is not complete.

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 uses a specific verb, 'derive', and names the resource: capabilities, functional objectives, and concrete tests from a feature spec. It clearly distinguishes this generation tool from retrieval siblings like get_functional_objectives by emphasizing that it creates testable Given-When-Then objectives and implementable tests.

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 useful context about when to use the tool (from a feature spec, requires Pro plan, billable, may take time) but does not explicitly contrast it with related alternatives like get_functional_objectives, add_functional_test, or import_functional_tests. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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