techlead_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool generates but reveals nothing about side effects, permissions required, input expectations, or output format. For a tool producing multiple artifacts, more behavioral context (e.g., whether it saves to workspace, what happens with missing inputs) is needed.

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 that efficiently lists the key outputs. It is front-loaded with the verb and target items. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating input expectations from outputs) without adding length.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and 16 sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what the tool returns, how parameters affect behavior, or how it fits into a design workflow. For example, users don't know if 'export_format' controls the output or if 'target_language' changes pseudocode style.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, while the schema has 5 parameters (including project_name, user_stories, export_format) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it fails to explain how parameters like 'user_stories' or 'security_requirements' influence the generated design.

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 uses the verb 'Generate' and lists specific outputs (feature checklist, flows, modules, pseudocode, architecture diagram), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'ba_analyze_requirements' or 'qa_design_test_strategy', missing a chance to specify its unique scope.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this tool is for initial design vs. detailed implementation, or when to prefer it over sibling tools like 'security_threat_model'.

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