prepare_change_research

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behaviors. It only mentions 'documentation-backed research pack' without detailing what the tool does internally, side effects, or output format. It does not state that it is read-only or destructive.

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 sentence, which is concise, but could benefit from additional structure or detail. It lacks front-loading of key information like output type or required inputs.

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 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the research pack contains, how it is accessed, or any dependencies. The tool's complexity warrants a more comprehensive 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. Only 'task' is hinted by the phrase 'planned configuration or troubleshooting task', but product, version, and language are not mentioned. Their meaning and impact remain unclear.

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 action (Build) and the resource (research pack) and provides context (for planned configuration or troubleshooting). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like prepare_auth_debug_pack or prepare_upgrade_plan.

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 for change planning or troubleshooting but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions. No when-not or alternative tool names are provided.

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