Hedgehog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively documents two important side effects: 'The findings markdown replaces the branch template content' and the automatic Phase 2 advancement trigger. It appropriately flags the destructive replacement behavior.

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 follows a logical structure: purpose statement, behavioral details, then parameter documentation. It is appropriately sized with minimal redundancy, though the Args section formatting (Python-docstring style) is slightly informal compared to the main 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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, an output schema (which handles return value documentation), and stateful side effects, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core action, side effects, and parameter meanings, though it could mention error cases (e.g., branch not found).

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% (parameters lack descriptions in the JSON schema), but the Args section compensates by documenting all three parameters: 'Spike name', 'Branch to mark as explored', and 'Markdown content with exploration findings'. This successfully provides necessary semantics missing from the 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Mark[s] a branch as explored and record[s] findings' using specific verbs and domain terminology (branch, spike). However, it does not explicitly distinguish usage from the similar sibling tool 'spike_mark_dead_end', which also finalizes a branch but presumably without findings.

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 provides valuable workflow context that 'when enough branches are explored (>=3), the spike automatically advances to Phase 2 (adversarial)', helping the agent understand state changes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'spike_mark_dead_end' or other completion alternatives.

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