decompose_kotlin_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool transforms prompts into planning artifacts and implies a non-destructive, analysis-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether it reads the codebase, writes files, or returns a structured plan.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the concrete outputs. It is concise, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but leaves gaps. An agent may not know what format the decomposition takes, whether the tool inspects an existing project, or how the roadmap should be consumed by subsequent scaffold/generate tools.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including enums and defaults, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It correctly stays above the schema's level, focusing on the tool's purpose rather than repeating parameter meanings.

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 uses a specific verb ('Breaks down') and resource ('user prompts'), and clearly enumerates the deliverables: Kotlin feature roadmap, Clean Architecture module breakdown, sprint phases, and acceptance criteria. This differentiates it from code-generation siblings, though it does not explicitly name another tool for contrast.

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 gives clear input context ('large, structured, or vague user prompts'), implying when this planning tool is useful. However, it does not state when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like scaffold_kotlin_project or design_kotlin_ui, leaving the agent to infer its role in a larger workflow.

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