add_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'analyze its impact' and 'complete lifecycle management' but doesn't specify what analysis entails, what lifecycle stages are created, whether this is a write operation, permissions needed, or response format. For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the tool's core functions. It's front-loaded with the primary action ('add a new feature') and avoids redundancy. However, it could be more concise by removing 'or project' redundancy with 'PRD' and clarifying the relationship between analysis and task expansion.

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, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral expectations, error conditions, or return values. For a tool with significant scope ('analyze impact', 'expand into tasks', 'lifecycle management'), this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent invocation.

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', 'targetPRD', 'targetProject', 'expandToTasks', and 'createLifecycle'. However, it doesn't explain the purpose or format of critical parameters like 'autoApprove', 'businessJustification', 'targetUsers', or 'requestedBy', leaving most parameters inadequately documented.

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 with specific verbs ('add', 'analyze', 'expand') and resources ('feature', 'PRD or project', 'actionable tasks', 'lifecycle management'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'enhance_prd' or 'create_issue' by focusing on feature addition with analysis and task expansion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'expand_task' or 'generate_prd' in sibling context.

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. With many sibling tools for project/issue management (e.g., 'create_issue', 'enhance_prd', 'expand_task'), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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