分析需求完整性

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core decision logic (complete vs. incomplete) and the resulting actions (generate summary and instruct build, or instruct to continue gathering), which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as whether it writes to files, whether it uses the provided file path beyond reading, or whether the analysis persists any state. Still, the described branching behavior is a significant transparency step beyond a generic 'analyze' label.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the conditional behavior in an efficient second sentence. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause contributes meaningful guidance for using the tool.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity with branching logic, the description explains the decision outcomes and references sibling tools (gather, build) appropriately. It does not detail the exact output format or how the 'instruct build command' is delivered, but the description is reasonably complete for an analysis tool in a workflow context. The presence of sibling tools provides additional contextual signals, and the description aligns well with that.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters (projectIdea, userAnswers, userResponseFilePath) beyond what the schema already states. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not go beyond that baseline.

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: analyze collected requirements to judge completeness and clarity. It further specifies branching actions, distinguishing it from siblings like gather (collection), build (construction), and preview (viewing). The verb 'analyze' plus resource '需求信息' makes it specific and actionable.

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 when to use the tool: after requirements have been collected and before proceeding to build. It provides clear context by stating that if requirements are clear, it instructs building, otherwise it directs to continue collecting (referencing the gather sibling). However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool should not be used or formalize when/where it fits in the workflow.

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