add_feature

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions generating documents based on project context but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation), permissions needed, or whether it modifies existing files. The high-level statement is insufficient for a tool that likely creates files.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with purpose and context. No redundant information. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient for its length.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides core purpose but lacks details on output format, success/failure indicators, and how the project context is used. It is minimally complete but could benefit from more context.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no new parameter-specific information ('基于项目上下文' is not a parameter). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates feature specification documents (requirements/design/task list) based on project context. The verb '生成' (generate) and noun '新功能规格文档' specify the output. However, does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'start_feature' which may overlap.

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?

Explicitly says '当用户需要添加新功能、生成功能规格文档时使用' (when user needs to add new feature, generate spec docs), providing clear usage context. Lacks guidance on when not to use or alternatives, especially given sibling 'start_feature'.

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