project_design_report

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

The description confirms it generates a report (implying non-destructive), but with no annotations provided, it carries the burden of explicitly stating its safety. It doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' or note any side effects, though the report nature strongly implies it. It does disclose what the report contains, which adds some behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, all informative. It front-loads the action, lists the content areas, and gives usage context without any fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 has no params and an output schema exists (so return values are already specified), the description covers the purpose, the contents, and when to use it. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly in the context of many sibling tools.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the report integrates, though it doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 it 'Generate a comprehensive design-status report' and lists exactly what it combines (intent summary, v2 spec richness, gate evaluation, next steps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_quality_gate_report by emphasizing it as a comprehensive overview rather than a focused gate check.

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 this as 'the recommended first call after opening a project to understand its current state.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly differentiates it from more specialized tools that are used later or for specific checks.

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