pass_to_ai_for_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the output path and that the design is based on the requirements file, but it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, or potential error conditions. This is some useful context but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with the output destination. It is free of fluff and every word earns its place, conveying the tool's function in exactly one line.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input (requirements), output location, and workflow step. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a simple pipeline step, this is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the default output path already described in the schema, adding no new semantic detail beyond what structured data provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool creates a design document from a requirements definition document, and identifies it as the second step of a workflow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pass_to_ai_for_requirements, pass_to_ai_for_implementation, and pass_to_ai_for_comments, which are for other phases.

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 workflow step designation ('2番目のステップ') indicates when this tool should be used relative to the overall process. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear this is for the design phase, not for requirements, comments, or implementation.

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