incorporate_research

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

With no annotations and only a vague description, behavioral traits are absent. The tool's side effects (e.g., file modifications), authorization needs, or operational constraints are undisclosed, requiring the agent to infer from parameter names.

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 single sentence is concise but at the expense of clarity. It lacks front-loaded specificity and does not earn its place, as it provides minimal actionable information for an 8-parameter tool.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It omits return behavior, side effects, and how the tool processes multiple analysis types, leaving major gaps for agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, such as how parameters interact (e.g., relationship between analysisType and researchPath). Fails to enhance understanding.

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 'Incorporate research findings into architectural decisions' is vague and lacks specificity. It does not state the primary action (e.g., reading research files and updating ADRs) or differentiate from sibling tools like perform_research or generate_adr_from_decision.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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