Create problem statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that validation failures return a non-raising ValidateResult (valid=False, errors[].message capped at 300 chars) rather than raising AssertionError/pydantic.ValidationError, and that nothing is written in that case. It also discloses the return shape (frontmatter only, no body).

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and effect chain, then behavior on failure, then return contract. Dense but largely earn-its-place; the internal ADR/issue/feat references are verbose and add noise for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

For a single-input create tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers effects, failure semantics, and return contract. The remaining gap is authoring guidance (no mention of get_prb_template/get_prb_example for body structure), which an agent would likely want.

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 0% and there is a single parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that content is body-only and that its H1 title is used to derive the filename, which adds real meaning beyond the bare 'content: string' schema. It stops short of specifying expected body format or required sections.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Create a new Problem Statement') and enumerates the concrete effects: fresh id, filename derivation, validation, and write to the base directory. An agent can distinguish it from sibling create_* tools and from get_prb/parse_prb/list_prb without opening any schema.

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 only routing guidance is a follow-up pointer: use get_prb to fetch the full document afterward. There is no explicit when-to-use versus edit/update/update_frontmatter, nor a pointer to get_prb_template for authoring the body, so context is implied rather than stated.

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