design_autonomy_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does explain the informational content returned and the protocol it describes. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only and side-effect-free, but the nature of a guide tool and the presence of an output schema make that omission minor.

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 tool's identity, then efficiently lists what it returns and how to use it. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no required fields, and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, contents, and position in the workflow. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 states a specific resource (the autonomous spec-to-board loop protocol) and what it returns (the loop, 13 pipeline stages, constraints, resume guidance). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `design_next_action`, which is used per-step after this one-time read.

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 gives explicit timing and alternatives: read this once before an autonomous run, then `design_next_action` guides each step. The agent knows exactly when to call this versus the per-step tool.

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