start_product

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

The description contradicts the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' by detailing that the tool generates multiple artifacts (PRD, prototype, etc.) and updates context, indicating mutation. According to the scoring rules, a contradiction results in a score of 1. The description does add context about the workflow outputs, but the contradiction is severe.

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 relatively concise, with each sentence contributing value. It front-loads the purpose and lists steps clearly. Minor inefficiency: the list could be formatted but overall effective.

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 complex multi-step workflow, the description covers the steps and output (viewable HTML prototype) adequately. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or what happens if required parameters are missing. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of the output helps. Still, it is fairly complete.

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% (6 parameters all described). The tool's description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'description' as the foundation but no further parameter details. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it orchestrates a complete product design workflow from requirements to an interactive HTML prototype. The verb 'orchestrate' and the enumerated steps provide a clear and specific purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_feature or start_bugfix by focusing on end-to-end product design.

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 implies usage when a full product design workflow is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., start_feature for individual features) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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