pm_workflow_quick_prd

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a workflow plan and that steps are executed sequentially by the AI client. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or potential limitations beyond the plan generation.

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 a header, effort level, steps, usage note, arguments, and return format. It is clear and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of the schema.

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 description explains the return type (Markdown workflow plan) and the orchestration model. For a workflow tool with no output schema, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly, especially given the sibling tools for different workflows.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description repeats the schema info in an Args block without adding significant new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameters.

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: 'Quick PRD workflow - Streamlined workflow for rapidly creating a PRD when the problem and solution are already well-understood.' It distinguishes from sibling workflow tools by specifying the quick, well-understood context.

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 states when to use: 'when the problem and solution are already well-understood.' The sibling list provides context for alternatives, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names are given.

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