generate_research_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool generates questions and creates a tracking system, without mentioning side effects like file I/O (implied by projectPath and adrDirectory), authentication needs, or limitations. Minimal transparency.

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 of 9 words, which is very concise. It avoids redundancy but is somewhat vague. No structure or front-loading issues, though it could benefit from more detail while remaining brief.

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?

Despite schema coverage, the description is insufficient for a complex tool with 9 parameters, many nested objects, and no output schema. It does not explain how parameters like analysisType affect behavior or what the output looks like. The lack of behavioral details and output specification leaves 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. Parameters like researchContext, problems, and knowledgeGraph are already well-documented in the schema.

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 context-aware research questions and creates a research tracking system. It distinguishes the action (generate+create) but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'incorporate_research' or 'perform_research' that may overlap in purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage based solely on the generic description.

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