generate_prd_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action of generating a prompt but does not mention whether it is a pure read-only operation, what the output looks like, or any side effects. This is a gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key information ('Generate an assembled Product Requirements Document prompt') and then specifies the inputs. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least state what the tool returns. It does not mention the output format or how the prompt is 'assembled', leaving the agent with uncertainties about the tool's behavior beyond the parameters.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'specified technology stacks and analysis focus areas' aligns with the parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses the specific verb 'generate' and identifies the resource as an 'assembled Product Requirements Document prompt'. It mentions the key inputs (technology stacks and analysis focus areas), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like generate_codebase_analysis_prompt or get_prd_template by specifying the PRD context.

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 when to use the tool (when needing an assembled PRD prompt with specified stacks and focus areas) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_prd_template for simple templates. There is no guidance on selecting between this and the sibling prompt-generating tools.

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