Analyze a design case

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

The description discloses behavioral substance beyond the annotations: it specifies the tool returns rejected patterns, a non-pattern baseline, evidence plans, and a bounded pattern compound, and that it diagnoses before prescribing. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, these output details add meaningful context about what the agent can expect.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return-value list, and ends with the usage instruction. No word is wasted; every sentence contributes a distinct piece of the operational picture.

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?

For a tool with a complex nested input schema and no output schema, the description gives the high-level output components and use case, but does not help the agent construct a well-formed 'case' object (e.g., what to put in 'team', 'scales', 'delivery'). The tool is fundamentally clear, but the missing parameter guidance leaves an agent with significant inference burden.

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% for top-level parameters, so the description needed to compensate. Instead, it does not mention 'case', 'maxRecommendations', or any guidance on how to structure the input object beyond implying the user provides a design problem. The nested schema is rich but the agent gets no help from the description on what to populate.

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 states a specific verb ('Diagnose forces') and clearly indicates the tool analyzes a design case to produce a pattern recommendation bundle. It lists concrete outputs ('questions, transparent scores, rejected patterns...'), which makes the tool's function identifiable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond 'Use this first', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use this first for an open-ended design problem' explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool and gives it an ordering relative to the pipeline. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or name any specific sibling alternative, so it lacks the full when/when-not/alternatives coverage that would earn a 5.

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