create_spike

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this creates a persistent spike entity under an existing story, that the story must already exist, and that the spike has a lifecycle ending with complete_spike. It doesn't detail failure modes or authentication, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The core action and definition are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the essential prerequisite and follow-up step. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple create tool with four scalar required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key context: what a spike is, that it belongs under an existing story, and what to do after completion. Minor gaps such as the expected format for timebox are not critical given the output schema and self-explanatory parameter names.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps well to the parameters: 'under a story' implies story_id, 'timeboxed' implies timebox, and 'answer a specific question' implies question. Title is less explicitly addressed but is self-explanatory as a parameter name. The semantic mapping is sufficient for an agent to construct valid arguments.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a Spike under a story', and defines what a Spike is ('a timeboxed investigation to answer a specific question'). This clearly distinguishes it from create_story and other sibling tools, and the phrase 'under a story' establishes the hierarchy.

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 gives clear invocation context: the parent story must already exist, and when the spike is done, complete_spike should be called with findings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the prerequisite and follow-up provide enough guidance for correct use.

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