Create PRD

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key creation behavior (writes to PRDs/ folder, fills a template with specific sections) but omits details about overwrite behavior, idempotency, permissions, or return values—leaving a moderate gap for a creation tool.

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: the first states the action and destination, the second summarizes the template content and use case. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 tool has 12 params, no output schema, and excellent schema coverage, the description provides a strong high-level picture: what it creates, where, what it includes, and when to use it. Missing return behavior and duplicate handling, but these are minor for a creation tool with rich schema.

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%; each parameter has a description. The tool description echoes several fields (problem statement, goals, user stories, requirements, success metrics, open questions) but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('structured Product Requirements Document'), states the target location ('PRDs/ folder'), and lists distinct content sections (problem statement, goals, user stories, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_process_doc or create_meeting_note.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('Perfect for feature documentation') that implies when to use this tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is adequate context without exclusions.

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