generate_checklist

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the genuinely useful fact that the response contains both structured data and markdown, which compensates for the missing output schema. It still says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown flow_id or about the locale's effect on output, so it isn't fully transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return shape. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple read-only, three-parameter generator the description covers the essential purpose and return format. Gaps remain around what the checklist actually contains and what locale changes, which matter since there is no output schema and locale is undocumented in the schema.

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 67% — phase and flow_id are already documented in the schema, locale has an enum and default but no description. The description adds only a paraphrase of phase ('pre-flight or post-flight') and gives no meaning for locale, so it does not meaningfully exceed what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Generate a ... checklist' — plus the scope ('for a specific flow') and the two variants (pre-flight/post-flight). The resource is clearly distinct from the sibling set (principles, smells, flows), though no sibling is named as an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is called per flow at a specific phase, and the phase enum in the schema clarifies before-design vs before-ship. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the flow must already be audited or whether flow_id must exist).

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