generate_prd_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what it does ('Generate an assembled...prompt') without disclosing behavioral traits like output format, whether it's idempotent, permission requirements, or error handling. It mentions 'assembled' but doesn't clarify what that entails operationally.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Generate an assembled Product Requirements Document prompt') and specifies key inputs. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output (what the generated prompt looks like), parameter usage, error conditions, and behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'technology stacks' and 'analysis focus areas' (mapping to two parameters) and implies 'project_context' through 'specified', but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or examples. This adds minimal semantic value beyond parameter names.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'Product Requirements Document prompt', specifying it's 'assembled' with 'technology stacks and analysis focus areas'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_prd_template' (which likely retrieves rather than generates) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other generate_* tools.

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 like 'get_prd_template' or other generate_* prompts. The description implies usage for PRD generation but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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