generate_sdd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that the tool writes a file to disk (overwrite behavior, permission requirements), nor does it explain the effect of detail/templatePreset on output. For a file-generating tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates outputs without waste. It is appropriately sized but arguably too terse 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?

With 7 parameters, nested objects, two enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits template presets, detail modes, tech stack input, and the fact that output is written to a path, leaving real gaps for an agent to fill.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters including nested objects. The description adds no parameter meaning at all – detail, templatePreset, techStack, and apiEndpoints are unexplained in prose, and the agent must rely on the partial schema descriptions (only detail and outputPath have them).

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 (Generates) and resource (SDD.md) and enumerates the artifacts produced (C4 diagrams, API contracts, sequence diagrams, ADRs). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like generate_design_spec or generate_srs, so the agent cannot tell when this is the right choice over those.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as generate_design_spec or generate_srs. The only usage signal is implicit in the artifact list.

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