get_prd_and_acceptance_criteria

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the caveat 'no external PRD yet', which is useful context, but it does not disclose what happens when no parameters are provided, whether it returns both summaries and criteria, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to be transparent about behavior.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is appropriately short but sacrifices essential information. The sentence earns its place in that it provides some context (source and caveat), but it does not cover enough ground to be considered well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (two optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the return value looks like, how to choose between journey_id and release_id, or what 'summaries and acceptance-style criteria' actually means in practice. The description is a fragment that leaves too much to inference.

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 input schema has two parameters (journey_id, release_id) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter or explain how they relate to recorded flows or release briefs. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails entirely, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool's output as 'summaries and acceptance-style criteria' sourced from recorded flows or release brief, which is a specific resource. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the tool name provides that, and the description clarifies the scope and source. It is somewhat distinguished from siblings that focus on releases or journeys, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'from recorded flows / release brief' hints at the context, but it does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools like get_release_context or get_journeys_for_release. The usage is implied, not clear.

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