scope

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds process detail (returns questions, decisions) and confirms non-destructive nature. No contradiction. Adds value by explaining what the tool produces beyond safety.

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 paragraph that is informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and covers all necessary points. Could be more concise but still effective.

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?

No output schema, but the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns: Why/What/How restatement, clarifying questions, decisions, nonfunctionals, building blocks, MVP vs out-of-scope. Also explains workflow. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description does not repeat parameter descriptions but provides context for the 'idea' parameter (vague idea) and explains how the tool uses it. This adds meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Turn a VAGUE idea into a buildable spec.' It specifies input (vague idea) and output (structured spec with questions, decisions, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like 'plan' and 'agent_plan' by noting it should be used before kickoff/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?

Explicit usage context: 'when you (or the user) have an idea but don't know what to specify and aren't thinking about security/scale/failure.' Also provides workflow: 'Use BEFORE kickoff/plan when the request is fuzzy; answer the questions with the user, then run kickoff on the concrete task.'

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