prd_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool splits chapters and associates with code symbols, and requires a vector library. However, it fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value: action, format support, prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values or error conditions. It does not. The prerequisite (vector library) is mentioned but not what happens if unmet. The description is too brief to be complete for a non-trivial tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already described. The description adds that markdown format is supported and vector library is required, which provides context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on parameter specifics like the meaning of minScore or projectPath beyond what the schema already says.

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 imports PRD/requirements documents, splits them by chapters, and associates with code symbols. It also specifies markdown support. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like prd_search or prd_coverage, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 only mentions a prerequisite (vector library configuration). There is no discussion of exclusion cases, context, or when other tools would be more appropriate.

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