Cross-Artifact Analysis

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

The description claims 'Writes CROSS_ANALYSIS.md', indicating a file creation side effect, which contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation. This is a serious inconsistency. Additionally, no further behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, rate limits) are disclosed, and annotations already cover safety but are contradicted.

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?

Two sentences with direct, front-loaded content: purpose, artifacts checked, findings, and output file. No redundant or extraneous information.

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, the description should explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the analysis result. It only says 'Writes CROSS_ANALYSIS.md' but does not describe the tool's return value or behavior if files are missing. Adequate for core function but incomplete on response format.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no usage tips or format details), resulting in baseline value.

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 specific verb 'checks alignment' and identifies the specific resources (SPECIFICATION.md, DESIGN.md, TASKS.md) along with the outcomes (orphaned requirements, missing designs, untraced tasks) and output file (CROSS_ANALYSIS.md). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdd_verify_tasks or sdd_validate_ears.

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 when cross-artifact consistency is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer typical use cases, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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