trace_enhance_prd

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: auto-discovery in two directory paths, deterministic ID categories, autonomous-mode acceptance criteria, creation of a traceability matrix, and a guarantee that the original PRD is not modified. This exceeds typical transparency and includes a helpful post-action instruction.

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 dense but well-organized, opening with the core action and following with execution timing, discovery paths, ID format, mode-specific behavior, and post-action guidance. Each clause adds value; no filler.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers when to call, what it does, where artifacts are created, what the user should be told, and the critical non-mutation guarantee. It lacks error handling details or explicit return format, but these are not essential for invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches prd_content by naming the exact auto-discovery directories and explains the ID-generation logic, giving the agent a clearer mental model of how the parameters are used.

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 states a specific action ('Assign tracking IDs to every requirement in the PRD') and resource (PRD), then distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its pipeline position (after rc_define/prc_synthesize, before building) and its non-mutating behavior. It clearly separates from trace_status and trace_map_findings.

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?

Explicit timing guidance is given: 'Call after PRD is created (rc_define or prc_synthesize) and BEFORE building.' The description also indicates the tool is appropriate when a PRD exists in standard locations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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