Hedgehog

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

No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is idempotent, what side effects occur (state changes, persistence), error conditions (missing branches), or mutation semantics beyond the word 'Create'.

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?

Efficient Google-style docstring format with clear separation between description and Args. No redundant text, though brevity comes at the cost of omitting workflow context that could aid agent 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 existence of output schema, return values need not be described. However, for a complex workflow tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description lacks essential domain context (what constitutes a 'branch' in this system, relationship to ADR generation) necessary for correct invocation sequencing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section provides minimal compensation: identifies 'name' as referring to the Spike and 'synthesis_md' as Markdown content. However, lacks constraints (format conventions for spike names, length limits) or examples that would fully compensate for absent schema documentation.

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?

States specific verb (Create) and resource (synthesis document) with scope (comparing all explored branches). However, lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like spike_generate_adr or spike_complete_branch regarding when synthesis is appropriate versus other terminal actions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (spike_generate_adr, spike_complete_branch) or prerequisites (e.g., whether branches must be completed first). No mention of workflow position in the spike lifecycle.

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