Plan Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a transformation (reads input, produces prompt), which suggests a non-destructive read-like operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state idempotency, permissions, or side effects. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the key action ('Turns a raw project idea'). It is concise and contains no filler.

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 hints at the output ('enriched, polished prompt') but does not cover error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., idea length requirements), or behavior of optional parameters. Given the low complexity (3 params, no output schema), it is minimally complete but could be improved.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the parameters 'idea', 'tags', or 'grade'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify their roles (e.g., what 'grade' means, how 'tags' are used). This significantly reduces the tool's usability for an AI agent.

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 verb 'turns' and the resource 'raw project idea' into 'enriched, polished prompt'. It specifies the use of a curated knowledge base. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools, though it could be more precise about the output structure.

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?

No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tools are listed, the description misses an opportunity to specify prerequisites or context (e.g., 'Use this for initial project planning before executing tasks').

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