generate_prd

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed-world scope. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or output format details. No contradiction exists, but minimal value is added.

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 a single, efficient line listing synonyms for PRD generation. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured by separating synonyms with commas or clarifying the core action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage without enhancement.

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 generates a Product Requirements Document with specific synonyms (PRD, 요구사항 문서, 제품 요구사항, etc.), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_requirements' or 'create_user_stories', which could have overlapping domains.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_requirements' or 'create_user_stories'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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