analyze_alignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: side effects ('Creates tasks/reports based on action'), typical runtime ('<5 seconds'), and output format ('Alignment scores, misaligned items, recommendations'). This exceeds the burden of disclosure.

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 and front-loaded with a hint and action list. It uses emojis for readability, though it repeats 'Unified alignment analysis tool' twice. Overall, it efficiently communicates key information.

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 complexity (3 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, side effects, runtime, and output summary. No critical missing information is identified.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it repeats action values and provides a side-effect hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly.

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 it is a unified alignment analysis tool for Todo2 and PRD. It specifies two distinct actions ('todo2' for task alignment, 'prd' for PRD alignment), providing a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like task_analysis or context.

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 explains when to use each action within the tool ('todo2' for task alignment, 'prd' for PRD alignment). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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