get_prd

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' and 'Returns the content,' but doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe error behavior. This is minimally adequate but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no redundant 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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return structure. The combination of description and schema adequately covers selection and invocation, though it doesn't mention potential errors or read-only guarantee.

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 already includes descriptions for both parameters (path and document) with 100% coverage. The description restates the valid document types from the schema but doesn't add additional semantic meaning, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as PRD documents with explicit types (PRD, VISION, SCOPE, REQUIREMENTS). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_prd or summarize_prd by framing this as a read/return-content operation.

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 provides clear context that this tool reads a specified document type, implying it should be used when raw content is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a read tool.

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