generate_research_questions

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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint to false, which implies mutation, but the description does not disclose what 'create research tracking system' actually entails (e.g., writing files, modifying project state, persistence). The burly detail is left completely unexplained, and there is no elaboration beyond the annotation.

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 sentence with a clear verb, no redundant words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is as concise as possible for the message it conveys.

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?

This is a complex tool with 9 parameters, many nested objects, and no output schema. The description is far too brief to cover how the tool behaves, what it returns, or how the parameters interact. An agent would have no idea about the return format or how to properly invoke it, making this inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so each parameter is already described in the input schema. The description adds only the word 'context-aware', which hints at using context parameters but provides no concrete mapping or interaction guidance beyond what the schema already offers.

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 states it generates research questions and creates a tracking system, which is a clear verb+resource pairing. However, it does not mention the 'context-aware' aspect in a way that differentiates it from siblings like perform_research or create_research_template, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative siblings. It does not state when it should be chosen over perform_research, incorporate_research, or create_research_template, nor any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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