pm_workflow_technical_discovery

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns a plan and the AI client orchestrates execution, not performing actions directly. It also notes effort level and steps, making behavior 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?

Description is well-structured with sections, effort level, and numbered steps. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or wordiness. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Two parameters are sufficiently described. The return value is specified as a Markdown workflow plan. The description explains the execution model and step sequence. Minor gap: no details on output structure, but it's adequate for a workflow 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and description repeats parameter explanations exactly as in schema. It does not add new meaning or constraints beyond the schema's own descriptions, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 evaluates technical feasibility and documents architecture decisions. It provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling workflow tools, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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 says 'Use this tool to get a complete workflow plan' and implies technical discovery context, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. Sibling workflow tools exist without comparative guidance.

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