describe_framework

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the plan is 'synthesized', it must follow design_framework, and the 'unresolved' view exposes TODO holes needing target data or a design decision.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the selectors, then the prerequisite last. Dense with parentheticals but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the report sections. It omits what happens if design_framework was never run (empty result vs error), which is the only notable gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what each 'what' selector actually returns (summary = mcu + clocks + peripherals, gpio = per-pin config, peripherals = init blocks, unresolved = TODO holes), which is meaning the flat enum string in the schema does not convey.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a specific resource ('the synthesized FrameworkPlan'), and it enumerates the distinct views (summary, clocks, gpio, peripherals, init_order, unresolved) so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It differentiates itself from design_framework by naming it as a prerequisite, though it never distinguishes itself from render_framework.

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?

'Run design_framework first' gives an explicit ordering prerequisite, which is real usage context that prevents calling it before a plan exists. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming render_framework as an alternative for visual output.

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