task_preflight_artifact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by stating that identical inputs produce the same artifactId for deduplication, reinforcing deterministic behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no fluff. The first defines purpose, the second adds important dedup info. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

While the output concept is explained, the description fails to cover the input parameters (12 params, 4 required) and usage context. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. With 12 parameters including nested objects, the agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning, which is a critical gap.

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 composes an implementation brief, verification plan, change plan, and flow map into one typed preflight artifact for start-of-work preparation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like file_preflight or flow_map by specifying the combination of multiple documents.

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 implies use for start-of-work preparation but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from siblings.

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