analyze_design_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns technical recommendations and does not indicate destructive side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only or mention any authentication or rate limitations. The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety assurances.

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 well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, then differentiates from a sibling tool, provides examples, and ends with parameter explanations. It is front-loaded but somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no enums) and the rich sibling context, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, and provides examples. There is no missing information necessary for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning. It explains the 'requirements' parameter as 'natural language description of what the object needs to do — functional needs, environment, loads, etc.' and 'material' as optional override. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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: 'Analyze a functional requirement and return technical recommendations.' It specifies it is an internal-lookup tool that resolves natural-language requirements into material recommendations, design patterns, dimensional constraints, print orientation rules, and expert guidance notes. It distinguishes itself from the user-facing flow tool design_session, making its role unique among siblings.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For the user-facing flow... call design_session(...) first. That tool internally calls this one for technical lookups; agents calling analyze_design_requirements directly should treat it as a pre-design analysis pass, not the user-facing entry point.' It provides concrete examples of valid inputs, guiding correct usage.

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