generate_functional_objectives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is billable, may take time, requires a Pro plan, and explains that refresh=true replaces prior generated content. No contradictions. Could further detail side effects or concurrency behavior.

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 somewhat verbose, breaking into three paragraphs with detailed step-by-step explanation. While informative, it could be more concise without losing essential information. The first paragraph introduces, second explains the process, third adds operational notes.

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 (generates capabilities, objectives, tests) and the presence of an output schema (inferred from context), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, input requirements (spec, Pro plan), refresh behavior, and what is generated. Missing: what happens if no spec is attached, error conditions, or output format details.

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 67% (model_id and server_version described in schema; server_version lacks description in both schema and tool description). The description adds meaning for 'refresh' (re-derives from scratch) beyond the schema's default and description. Missing elaboration on server_version and model_id beyond schema.

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 derives capabilities, functional objectives, and tests from a feature spec. It uses specific verbs and resources ('generate', 'derive') and explains the process step-by-step. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_functional_test or associate_functional_test, leaving the agent to infer uniqueness.

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 implies usage when a feature spec is available and notes requirements (Pro plan, billable, time-consuming) and the refresh flag behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it.

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