Scope Research Question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the detailed output scaffold (FINER appraisal, framework elements, constructs, scope boundaries, question type). This clarifies what the tool returns without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and packs essential output details into a compact list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating the scaffold's components. Combined with a clear usage context and readOnlyHint, it provides sufficient orientation for an agent to invoke and interpret the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (idea, context, paradigm) has its own description. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it reinforces the 'idea' role but doesn't compensate further, consistent with the baseline for full schema 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?

The description specifies the tool's core function with a clear verb and resource: 'Turn a fuzzy idea into one or more sharp, researchable questions.' It enumerates the returned components, making the purpose precise and well-differentiated from sibling tools like design-study, which it explicitly positions itself before.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use at the very start of a research effort, before design-study.' This provides clear temporal context and informally names a related sibling, but it doesn't explicitly cover when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools beyond the temporal pointer.

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