match_design_requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes scanning for triggers and returning results, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a helpful example. It is well-structured without wasted words, though minor reduction could make it even terser.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description mentions returning 'matched constraint sets with rules and guidance' but does not detail the structure of the output. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some ambiguity about the return format.

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 has only one parameter 'description' with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning: 'What the object needs to do' and provides an example ('outdoor hook that holds a heavy hanging planter'). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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: identifying functional requirements from a natural language description of a design task. It lists specific requirement triggers and indicates the output is matched constraint sets with rules and guidance. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_design_requirements' by focusing on scanning language for triggers.

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 says 'Use this to understand WHAT constraints apply before getting the full design brief,' implying it is a preliminary step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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