Analyze your PRD to extract required capabilities, match reusable assets, flag missing components, and compute a reuse score for faster app planning.
Analyze a PRD text, extract required capabilities, match reusable vs missing assets, and compute reuse score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prd | Yes | Product Requirement Document (PRD) text or feature list | |
| appName | Yes | Target application name (e.g. "nstok-app-w") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether the analysis is read-only, whether results are persisted to the knowledge base, whether it invokes other tools internally, or any permission/latency characteristics. For a compound four-stage pipeline tool, the behavioral surface is essentially undocumented.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is dense but every clause maps to a real capability; only the run-on enumeration keeps it from being ideal.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about what the agent gets back and how to act on it. Listing the computed artifacts (capabilities, matched/missing assets, reuse score) gives partial return-value intuition, but the workflow placement and result semantics remain thin.
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% and there are only 2 params, so the schema already documents both. The description mentions 'PRD text' and asset matching but adds no format, syntax, or size constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('PRD text'), then enumerates the sub-operations: extract capabilities, match reusable vs missing assets, compute reuse score. This is far more informative than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like find_existing_patterns or validate_architecture, which plausibly overlap in the 'reuse analysis' space.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The implied workflow (analyze a PRD before planning) is inferable, but the agent receives no routing instructions relative to the many find_*/create_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.