add_feature

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 implies a complex write operation ('add', 'analyze', 'expand', 'manage lifecycle') but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is vague on implementation details, leaving critical behavioral traits unclear.

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 a single run-on sentence that packs multiple actions ('add', 'analyze', 'expand', 'manage'), making it somewhat dense but not excessively verbose. It could be more structured by separating distinct phases, but it avoids unnecessary fluff and gets straight to the point.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It outlines high-level functionality but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, output format, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with such a broad scope and many inputs, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 10 parameters. It mentions 'feature', 'PRD or project', 'impact analysis', 'actionable tasks', and 'lifecycle management', which loosely map to some parameters like 'featureIdea' and 'targetPRD', but fails to explain the purpose or format of most parameters (e.g., 'autoApprove', 'expandToTasks', 'createLifecycle'), leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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's purpose: 'Add a new feature to an existing PRD or project, analyze its impact, and expand it into actionable tasks with complete lifecycle management.' It specifies the verb ('add'), resource ('feature'), and scope ('PRD or project'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'enhance_prd' or 'expand_task'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing PRD/project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'enhance_prd' or 'create_issue', leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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