pm_workflow_feature_kickoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the output is a 'Markdown workflow plan with steps, guidance, and execution instructions' and lists the five steps. No destructive behavior is implied, and the read-only nature is clear.

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 well-structured with sections (Effort Level, Steps, Args, Returns) and is front-loaded with purpose. It is concise enough but could be slightly shorter; however, every sentence adds value.

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?

For a multi-step workflow tool, the description is complete: it explains the workflow purpose, steps, effort level, execution pattern (AI orchestrates), parameters, and return type. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the return format. It lacks details on error handling or step dependencies, but these are beyond typical scope.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description repeats the parameter definitions ('topic' and 'context') but adds only minimal context beyond the schema, such as grouping them under 'Args.' No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'Complete workflow for kicking off a new feature, from problem definition through implementation-ready requirements.' It lists specific steps and distinguishes from sibling workflows by focusing on a standard feature kickoff, unlike other specialized workflows like lean startup or customer discovery.

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 states when to use: 'Use this tool to get a complete workflow plan' and notes that the AI should orchestrate execution. However, it does not explicitly compare to or exclude other workflow tools, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this one over siblings like pm_workflow_lean_startup or pm_workflow_triple_diamond.

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