research_generate_specs

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses that writing only occurs if approved=true, and writes five spec types via Memoire registry. Omits side effects, error states, or rollback behavior, leaving gaps.

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?

Two sentences plus a prerequisite note, front-loaded with purpose. Concise, no wasted words, but could benefit from clearer separation of conditions.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return values or errors; it does not. Five parameters, only two described. Lacks details on error handling or side effects, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 40% (only approved and research have descriptions). Description reinforces approved's safety gate but does not explain hypothesis, intent, or runId, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it writes research-backed Atomic Design specs from ResearchStore V2, listing five spec types. Differentiated by prerequisite mention of research_design_package for preview, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like create_spec.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite (research_design_package) and requirement (approved=true) for writing. Provides clear context for when to use, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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