Hedgehog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the state transition behavior (Phase 0→1) and gating logic, but omits error handling (e.g., what happens if called when not in Phase 0), reversibility, or side effects beyond the phase change.

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 distinct sentences: the action, the gate explanation, and the Args note. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args:' line is slightly informal/docstring-style but efficiently addresses the schema coverage gap without verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description correctly omits return value details. It adequately covers the Phase 0→1 transition logic for a workflow tool with one simple parameter. It could be strengthened by describing error conditions or Phase 1 characteristics.

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 0% (the 'name' property lacks a description). The description compensates with 'Args: name: Spike name', which adds minimal but necessary semantic meaning. Given the single parameter and intuitive naming, this is sufficient but not exemplary.

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 action ('Approve meta-design and advance'), explicit resource ('spike'), and precise scope ('Phase 0 to Phase 1'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling spike_approve_adr by specifying this handles 'meta-design' approval versus ADR approval.

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 second sentence explains the gate mechanism ('cannot proceed to divergent exploration until...'), establishing when to use it (before Phase 1 exploration) and the prerequisite state (problem framing approved). It lacks explicit mention of sibling alternatives but implies the workflow sequence clearly.

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