define_module_requirements

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'generates' documentation but does not reveal whether this operation is read-only, whether it persists files or records, or what the output format is. This omission matters because 'generates' could imply a side-effectful write.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. It states the verb, resource, and context without wasting tokens, which is well suited to the schema-documented parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or whether it creates any persistent artifact; it does neither. The input side is well covered by the schema, but the absence of output expectations and side-effect information leaves the agent underinformed for calling the tool.

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?

All four input parameters already have detailed schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no param-specific value beyond relating business context to the output, and even mentions 'objectives' without a corresponding parameter, introducing a slight mismatch.

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 ('Generates') and defines a concrete resource ('comprehensive requirements documentation for a new module'), which clearly distinguished it from sibling tools like validate_requirements or generate_documentation. The scope and outcome are immediately apparent.

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 the right context for use ('for a new module', 'based on business context') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention alternatives. There are no when-not-to-use guidelines or exclusion conditions, so the agent is left to infer usage.

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