Draft from sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: every line traced to the source fragment, open questions listed below, and refusal when no supporting source. These go beyond the schema and give the agent an accurate mental model of the tool's operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and key output properties, and the second adds a decisive rejection condition. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient insight into the return structure (traced lines, open questions) and refusal case. It could have elaborated on where sources come from or how the draft is presented, but for a two-parameter tool, this is adequately complete.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (kind and topic) with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond restating the kinds in prose. It does not introduce new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Draft') and names clear resources ('PRD section, user stories or acceptance criteria'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting traceability to fragments and listing open questions, which none of the sibling tools imply.

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?

The description conveys clear context: use this tool to draft from sources with traceability. It also gives an implicit when-not by stating it refuses when no source supports the topic, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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