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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only, non-destructive analysis, nor does it describe the output format, whether it returns a list of causes, or any interaction model. The only behavioral hint is that it is a cognitive exercise, which is implied but not made explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple framework tool, though its terseness leaves little structure beyond the core idea. Every word earns its place, but it could benefit from slightly more explicit framing.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to interpret the result. Instead, it only conveys the core metaphor, leaving significant gaps about output format, depth of analysis, and usage context. For a framework tool in a crowded sibling set, this is incomplete.

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 100% description coverage for the single 'input' parameter, clearly explaining that it should be the problem, decision, project, or question to analyze. The description itself adds no further parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 vivid language ('Imagine the project failed... and find what killed it') to convey the pre-mortem technique, which is a specific and recognizable analysis method. It distinguishes itself from sibling frameworks like run_inversion or run_five_whys by focusing on prospective failure. However, it does not explicitly state a verb like 'analyze' or 'run', relying on metaphor, which slightly reduces directness.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other framework siblings (e.g., run_scenario_planning, run_second_order_thinking). It simply describes the technique without indicating appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the one-sentence metaphor.

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