propose_research_chain

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states it creates tasks and dependency edges, and defaults to 'active' status. But it omits details like error handling, idempotency, or side effects on existing tasks.

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?

Two sentences plus a default status note. Every word is necessary, no redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the chain's structure, use case, and default status. Without output schema, it could mention return value or confirmation, but it is sufficient for a creation tool with well-described parameters.

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 100% and description does not add significant meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. The description's explanation of the chain structure is not parameter-specific, so it adds minimal value over the 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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a Research->Plan->Implement chain under a parent task/phase, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'derive_subgoal' or 'form_intention' which create different structures.

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?

Explicitly recommends use when 'tackling work with significant unknowns', providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, lacking full comparative guidance.

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