generate_feature_doc

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states output is a 'quick one-page technical spec', implying non-destructive generation, but omits permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a generation tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 three well-organized sentences: purpose, content areas, and use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extra words.

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 no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and nested objects in the input schema, the description should provide more detail on parameter format and behavior. It lacks explanations for required nested structures (e.g., business_rules requires name and table), leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only lists high-level categories (tables, business rules, etc.) without explaining individual parameters or nested object structures. The agent lacks guidance on how to populate fields like business_rules or script_includes, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it generates a quick one-page technical spec for a specific feature or change, listing covered areas like tables, business rules, script includes, notifications, and test plan. This distinguishes it from related siblings like generate_project_doc (for projects) and generate_docs (more generic), making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly recommends use for sprint documentation, change requests, or PR descriptions, providing clear context. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the use cases imply it's for small, scoped features, differentiating from broader doc tools.

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