add_feature

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

Description claims 'generate new feature specification document' which implies writing to disk or creating files, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no state modification. This is a contradiction. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, required permissions) are disclosed beyond the inconsistent annotations.

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?

Description is brief with two sentences covering usage and output. It is front-loaded and to the point, though could be slightly more structured with explicit sections.

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 contradiction between description and annotations, the tool's behavior is unclear. No output schema is provided, and the description doesn't clarify return format or side effects. For a tool that generates documents, this is incomplete.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: to generate feature specification documents (requirements/design/task list) based on project context when user wants to add a new feature. Verb 'generate' and resource 'feature specification document' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_feature' which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

Description provides a usage scenario ('when user needs to add a new feature/generate spec document') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. With siblings like 'start_feature' and 'code_review', more distinction would be helpful.

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