Hedgehog

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Adds conceptual context that 'Branches represent distinct approaches' and phase constraints. Missing critical mutation details: idempotency, error handling for duplicate branch names, or side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences followed by structured Args block. Front-loaded with purpose and phase constraints. Zero redundancy, though formal 'Args:' structure slightly deviates from conversational prose without reducing clarity.

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?

Output schema exists reducing need to document returns. All params documented. However, given complex workflow domain (phases, branches, spikes), lacks explanation of branch lifecycle, relationship to siblings like spike_complete_branch, or validation rules.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates via Args section documenting all 3 parameters: 'name' (Spike name), 'branch_name' (Filesystem-safe constraint), and 'description' (purpose). The 'Filesystem-safe' detail adds crucial constraint information absent from schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Register' with resource 'exploration branch' and domain context 'spike'. Implies operation on existing spike via 'for a spike' and the name parameter, distinguishing it from spike_create. Could explicitly state 'adds to existing spike' for absolute clarity.

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?

Explicitly states valid phases 'Phase 0 (planning) or Phase 1 (divergent)' for usage timing. Missing explicit 'when not to use' (e.g., prohibited phases) or guidance on choosing between alternatives like spike_create.

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