Hedgehog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully documents the critical workflow side effect: 'When all explored branches are challenged, the spike automatically advances to Phase 3 (synthesis).' It also explains the semantic purpose of challenges ('document failure modes, hidden assumptions, and edge cases'). Missing auth requirements or error behavior details, but covers the primary state-transition logic.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, conceptual explanation, workflow trigger, and necessary Args section. With 0% schema coverage, the Args block is essential and earns its place by documenting all three parameters. No redundant or wasted prose.

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 workflow tool with complex state management (phases, branches, challenges), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the phase advancement trigger, documents all parameters (compensating for 0% schema coverage), and an output schema exists per context signals (relieving the description of return value documentation duties).

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%, requiring the description to compensate fully. The Args section successfully documents all three parameters: 'name' is clarified as 'Spike name', 'branch_name' includes the critical constraint 'must be in EXPLORED status', and 'challenge_md' specifies 'Markdown content'. This adequately compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Add adversarial challenge') and identifies the target resource ('to a branch'). It distinguishes from siblings like spike_add_branch by focusing on 'adversarial challenge' documentation rather than branch creation. The second sentence clarifies what challenges represent (failure modes, assumptions, edge cases).

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 includes usage constraints in the Args section ('must be in EXPLORED status'), providing a clear prerequisite. It also explains the workflow consequence (automatic advancement to Phase 3), which guides the user on the impact of the action. However, it lacks explicit comparison to siblings (e.g., when to challenge vs. complete_branch vs. mark_dead_end).

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