Split document

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, and the description confirms it initiates a session. However, it provides no additional details about side effects, permissions, or rate limits beyond what annotations already convey.

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, concise but lacking essential details. It front-loads the action but ends with a vague phrase ('start the boundary planning session') that reduces clarity.

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?

With 6 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex ecosystem of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the workflow, expected outcomes, or how this tool integrates with others.

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 only 17% (only output_dir has a description), and the tool description does not add any parameter-level context. The description fails to clarify the meaning or usage of parameters like max_pages, min_pages, or overlap_pages.

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 specifies the action ('Parse a PDF/DOCX') and resource ('start the boundary planning session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on committing, getting context, or writing chunks.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like commit_boundary or get_boundary_context. The description implies it is the first step but does not state preconditions or exclusions.

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