Create Pull Request Payload

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds transparency by naming the input files (SPECIFICATION.md, TASKS.md) and the output's contents (spec summary, requirements, task progress), which aligns with annotations and provides valuable context without contradictions.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word is necessary. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 purpose (generating a payload for another tool), the description provides complete context: input files, output nature (routing_instructions), and the intended downstream use. No gaps are evident.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as the schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions and defaults.

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 the tool generates a pull request payload from SPECIFICATION.md and TASKS.md and returns routing_instructions for another tool. It distinctly specifies the verb (generates) and resource (PR payload), differentiating it from sibling tools like sdd_create_branch.

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 usage context by mentioning the routing_instructions for GitHub's create_pull_request tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not guidance. This leaves room for ambiguity.

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