Hedgehog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses side effects: it warns that it 'creates the directory structure' and 'generates the meta-design template.' It loses a point for omitting behavioral details like idempotency (what happens if the filesystem name already exists?) or permissions requirements.

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 an efficient structure: a one-sentence purpose summary, followed by implementation details ('Initializes... creates... generates'), and a structured Args block documenting the two undocumented schema parameters. Every sentence serves the agent's decision-making.

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 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the domain concept ('spike investigation'), lifecycle stage ('Phase 0'), side effects (filesystem/template generation), and fully documents both parameters. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits return value details.

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?

The Args block richly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. For 'name,' it adds critical filesystem validation rules ('alphanumeric, hyphens, underscores, max 64 chars') absent from the schema. For 'problem_statement,' it provides semantic meaning ('The problem this spike investigates').

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 the specific action 'Create a new spike investigation' (verb + resource). It distinguishes itself from lifecycle siblings (e.g., spike_add_branch, spike_archive) by stating it 'Initializes' the spike and targets 'Phase 0', clearly marking it as the entry-point tool.

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 clear contextual guidance by labeling this as the 'Phase 0' initialization step, implicitly positioning it as the first action in the spike workflow before tools like spike_add_branch. However, it lacks explicit negative guidance (e.g., 'do not use for existing spikes; use spike_get_state instead').

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