需求追问

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

The description explains the core behavior (analyze, judge sufficiency, output questions) but doesn't specify the output format when info is sufficient, whether it modifies any state, or any authentication or rate limit requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and more details would improve transparency.

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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and output. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 presence of an output schema and 5 params (with 3 enums), the description covers the main behavior. However, it could mention the output structure more explicitly (though output schema exists) and discuss error handling or edge cases for missing info.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions the raw_idea is required but doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings or usage nuances. The schema already provides sufficient descriptions for each parameter.

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 analyzes raw ideas or page modifications to determine if info is sufficient for development, and outputs follow-up questions if needed. This distinguishes it from siblings like spec_compile (which likely compiles to a spec) or product_spec_assist (which assists in writing specs).

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 usage when user input is vague and needs clarification before development, and notes when info is missing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings or state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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