backlog_capture_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions citations and relationship but does not explain side effects (e.g., creation of a record), required permissions, or what happens on invocation. The required parameters imply a write operation, but the description lacks explicit behavioral details.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value, with no wasted content.

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 no output schema, low parameter coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, state changes, or how to fill the 8 parameters (7 required). The tool is more complex than the description suggests.

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 only 38%, yet the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'citations' and 'relationship'. It does not clarify 'as', 'title', 'content', 'bears_on', 'category', or 'what_it_is'. The enum for 'category' is not mentioned, nor the format for 'citations'. The description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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's purpose: recording an external technology, prior-art system, or benchmark with citations and relationship. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'backlog_capture_prompt' or 'backlog_capture_requirement' by focusing on external references.

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 explicitly states 'Use when recording an external technology, prior-art system, or benchmark', providing clear context. While it does not list alternatives or exclusions, the context sufficiently guides selection among sibling capture tools.

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