design_research_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating it saves to a specific file path (rc-method/design/DESIGN-RESEARCH-BRIEF.md) and that it analyzes ICP, competitors, and brand constraints. This clarifies side effects and data usage beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences, with the first front-loading the core action and the second listing outputs and the destination file. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, the phase of use, the dependency on PRD, the detailed list of outputs, and where the output is saved. The annotations handle safety and idempotency, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter (project_path) and the schema already provides full coverage with a clear description ('Absolute path to the project directory'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema's completeness.

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 a specific action ('Generate') on a specific resource ('Design Research Brief') during Phase 2. It enumerates concrete outputs (ICP design profile, competitive landscape, etc.) that distinguish it from other research or design tools. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 specifies when to use the tool: during Phase 2 (Define) and explicitly says 'Call AFTER prd is created.' This provides timing and a dependency condition. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to place it correctly.

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