blast-radius

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that excerpts are returned, citation is required, and question text may be logged. This provides useful behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state read-only or other constraints.

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 two sentences plus a note, front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return type, citation, and logging. Missing details like return format or limitations, but adequate for typical use.

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 covers the single parameter (question) at 100%. The description adds context about what the question pertains to (the brief) and what returns, but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool asks a question about the Blast Radius brief and returns relevant excerpts with citation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_against_frontier_line or get_thesis, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage when needing to query the Blast Radius brief, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that subject text may be logged, a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other aspects like idempotency or rate limits, which would improve safety awareness.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and lists output components efficiently. It is informative without being verbose, though slight trimming of the output list could improve conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a thorough list of return elements and a logging note, making it largely complete for a single-parameter tool with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'subject' is well-described in the schema. The description adds contextual framing but no additional syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 it stress-tests against the Blast Radius 'Frontier Line' framework and lists distinct return components, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_thesis or ask_blast_radius.

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 implies use for adversarial survivability assessment under AI acceleration but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though siblings provide context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only fetch of a checklist, and lists the contents. It does not mention any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, but for a simple get operation, this is sufficiently 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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core function and contents. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (structured checklist with anti-patterns, characteristics, pitch questions). It is complete for a simple fetcher, though it could mention the format (e.g., JSON) or whether it is a list.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by detailing what the returned checklist contains, which compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool retrieves a structured diligence checklist with specific content (anti-patterns, durable-startup characteristics, pitch questions). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Blast Radius diligence checklist'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'assess_against_frontier_line' which likely perform evaluations.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a checklist, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Siblings like 'assess_against_frontier_line' suggest a workflow (first get checklist, then assess), but no guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly confirm safety, rate limits, or data freshness. Minimal disclosure is acceptable for a simple fetch, but it lacks explicit behavioral statements.

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, concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and adding relevant context efficiently.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description states the purpose and adds useful context. However, it does not describe the return data format or contents, which would help an agent interpret the result, leaving a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable per the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Get' and the specific resource 'IGV (iShares Expanded Tech-Software ETF) quote', adding context about its use as a market signal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_blast_radius or get_thesis.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use or avoid this tool. The context 'SaaSpocalypse market signal referenced in the brief' hints at a specific scenario, but alternatives or exclusions are not discussed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool performs a read operation ('Get') and returns a short editorial, implying no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose behavior in edge cases (e.g., no latest update available) or any authorization requirements.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and what it returns. No unnecessary words or information.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it retrieves the latest 'Current Update' editorial on AI and software defensibility. While more format details could be useful, the description is complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage (trivially). The description does not add parameter semantics since there are none. Following guidelines, baseline score is 3.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'latest dated Blast Radius synthesis', clearly indicating the tool retrieves the most recent editorial content. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_thesis' and 'get_diligence_checklist' by specifying it provides a short editorial on AI capability surge and software defensibility.

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 gives context about the content (editorial on AI capability surge and software defensibility) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_thesis' or 'ask_blast_radius'. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), which is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 states the tool's purpose. It is not verbose and front-loads the key actions. However, it could be slightly restructured to separate the two outputs for better readability.

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 output schema, the description should provide more context about the returned data (e.g., format of the thesis, metrics included, quote details). The phrase 'durable Blast Radius thesis' is vague, and the combination with 'IGV software-ETF quote' is unexplained. The tool's purpose is incomplete, especially with a sibling 'get_igv_quote' that conflicts.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since no parameters exist). The description adds no parameter information because there are none. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully covers parameter semantics.

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 tool retrieves two distinct pieces of information: the Blast Radius thesis/metrics and the IGV quote. The verb 'Get' is appropriate. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_igv_quote', which also retrieves the IGV quote, causing potential ambiguity about which tool to use for only the quote.

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_igv_quote' for the quote alone or 'ask_blast_radius' for detailed analysis. The description lacks context on prerequisites or conditions for safe use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the email is stored, implying persistence, but does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or limits. The burden is not fully met.

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 sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action and outcome. However, it could mention what 'Blast Radius updates' are or if confirmation is sent.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'email'. The description adds context about storage but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema description.

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 a specific verb 'subscribe' and resource 'email address to Blast Radius updates', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_blast_radius or get_diligence_checklist which do different things.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as if a user wants to unsubscribe or check subscription status. The description implies usage for subscribing but does not state when not to use it.

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