summarize_prd

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. While 'summarize' implies a read-only operation, it does not explicitly confirm that no files are modified, nor does it disclose how PRD documents are located or what happens if none are available. This lack of safety-related transparency leaves the agent with assumptions.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and output format. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the primary verb.

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 one parameter and likely an adequate output schema. However, the description leaves usage guidelines and behavioral traits unstated, making it minimally viable but not contextually rich enough to guide an agent in choosing this over sibling tools or understanding potential side effects.

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 100% (the 'path' parameter is described as 'Project root directory'). The description does not add any parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 'summarize' with a clear resource 'PRD documents' and output format 'concise bullet list'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prd (which likely retrieves the PRD) and extract_requirements (which might extract structured requirements).

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 a summary is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like extract_requirements or compare_work_to_prd. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the agent must infer the context.

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