marketinque — launch plan & backlink index

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description repeats that but also adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotation: it describes returned fields, conditional 'for a project' behavior, and the fact that it operates against an index. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then lists the output fields in a structured, readable way. Each clause adds useful information, and the final two short sentences give usage and safety guidance without redundancy.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and its read-only nature. The agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 slug parameter is already described as 'The catalog slug, e.g. "saashub".' The description adds the context of using it before list_directories rows, but it does not add new semantics about the slug parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns one directory from the index and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what it does. It also distinguishes itself from list_directories by emphasizing 'one directory' and naming the sibling explicitly.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use it before opening a row from list_directories,' which tells the agent when this tool fits in the workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: it explains the conditional behavior based on `node`, the distinction between anonymous callers and project callers (free tier vs project's own data), and that certain parameters are ignored for projects. This is useful transparency about how the tool behaves in different contexts.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second sentence explains the conditional behavior. The third sentence covers the auth/context distinction. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details. The structure is logical: what, when, and how it behaves.

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 moderate complexity (conditional behavior, free-tier vs project distinction) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what the outline contains, what a node returns, and how parameters are scoped. It doesn't explicitly describe the output format (e.g., JSON structure), but the description's mention of 'phases and objectives with step counts' and 'every step under it, with status and whether it is unlocked' gives a reasonable picture. The sibling tools (get_step, get_directory) suggest this is part of a family, and the description is sufficient to select this tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of `node` (phase/objective slug) and how `done`, `not_applicable`, and `traits` are used in the free tier vs ignored for projects. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, which don't mention the free-tier/project distinction. The description doesn't repeat the enum values, which is appropriate since the schema covers 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the launch plan, with a distinct behavior depending on whether a `node` parameter is provided. It distinguishes between the outline view (without `node`) and the detailed step view (with `node`), and it names the specific fields returned (status, unlocked). This is a specific verb+resource description that differentiates it from siblings like get_step and get_directory.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to get the launch plan outline or a specific node's steps. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by describing the two modes. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., get_step for a single step, get_directory for directories). The guidance is clear for the tool itself but lacks explicit exclusions.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; no side effects.' It adds context that this is a safe read operation, and explains what data is returned. No contradictions; the additional phrase 'no side effects' is redundant but consistent. The description does not cover edge cases like invalid slugs, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loading the purpose and content, and then the usage context. Every word is purposeful, with no filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not discuss error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a simple read operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description itself adds little about parameters beyond the schema, though it reiterates that the slug comes from get_plan or next_steps, which is already in the schema. This meets the baseline for 100% coverage but does not add extra value.

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's function: returning one plan step in full, and enumerates the specific fields returned (title, detail, URL, play, prerequisites, verification, minutes, cost). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning it is used after next_steps or get_plan, and the slug source is from those tools. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Read it before working a step that next_steps or get_plan returned' and states the slug comes from those tools, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already marks the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the output differs by caller identity and includes both product/brand data and the state of five kit steps. Nothing contradicts the annotation.

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 compact and the second sentence carries precise functional information. The opening phrase is slightly vague but not wasteful, and the overall length is appropriate.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description names what is returned and notes the conditional behavior for projects versus anonymous callers. It leaves the exact meaning of 'five kit steps' undefined, but that is a minor gap for invocation.

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%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The only relevant invocation distinction is caller type, which the description already mentions.

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 'returns' with concrete resources (product profile, brand dossier, state of five kit steps), so an agent can infer this is a read tool for submission-kit data. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_directory or get_step.

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 by distinguishing project callers from anonymous callers, which implies when each behavior applies. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_step, get_directory, or next_steps, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'One email, no spam; they can unsubscribe from any mail,' which informs the agent of side effects and user control. It also clarifies that `confirmed` attests to explicit consent in the session, which is a key behavioral constraint. It doesn't mention error handling or idempotency, but for a simple waitlist join this is acceptable.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then immediately states the critical precondition. Every phrase earns its place: the paid-tier context, the 'ONLY' condition, and the one-email guarantee. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to call, and key behavioral traits. It doesn't explain what happens after joining (e.g., confirmation email), but that's not required without an output schema. It could mention idempotency, but the conditionality makes it sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of `confirmed` ('attests to that') but adds little beyond the schema's 'True only if the founder explicitly agreed to join, in this session.' The optional `product_url` is not elaborated further. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description doesn't add significant new 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 action: 'Put the founder on the marketinque waitlist for a project.' It specifies the resource (waitlist) and adds context about what the waitlist includes (paid tier). This is distinct from the sibling tools, which are all get/list operations, so the purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 an explicit condition: 'Call ONLY after the founder gave you their email and said yes in this session.' This provides a clear when-to-use rule and implies when not to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling set makes it obvious this is the only write tool. The 'ONLY' plus the session consent requirement is strong guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about the default phase, the 95 free dofollow rows, and what each row contains (submission page and recorded listing for projects), which goes beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the output.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives essential output details. Every word earns its place, and it avoids repeating schema 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?

For a list tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: default phase, row content, and per-project recorded listings. It doesn't explicitly describe ordering or pagination, but those are handled by schema fields (offset, limit) and the phrase 'in the order that works' provides a hint. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%—every parameter has a description. The tool description adds context about the default phase and what rows contain, which indirectly relates to the phase and unrecorded_only parameters, but it does not need to explain each parameter since the schema already does. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as listing directories that provide backlinks, and it specifies the output includes submission pages and recorded listings. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_directory (singular) and next_steps, though it doesn't explicitly use the word 'list'—the name covers that.

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 explains the phase-based workflow ('one phase at a time') and the default phase, which gives context for how to use the tool. However, it does not contrast this with alternatives like get_directory or when to choose this over other tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that `done`/`not_applicable`/`traits` are ignored for projects, and that the sprint is packed into `minutes`. However, it doesn't disclose what 'sprint' means behaviorally or what the return shape looks like, which is a gap given no output schema.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds the free-tier/project distinction efficiently. It's compact and every clause earns its place, though the backtick-heavy style is slightly dense.

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 read-only tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage context (free tier vs project) but doesn't explain what the returned 'sprint' looks like or how 'tree order' is determined. An agent could call it correctly but might not know what to expect back. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, but the return format is undocumented.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds the key semantic distinction that `done`, `traits`, and `not_applicable` are free-tier only and ignored for projects, which is valuable. But it doesn't add much beyond that, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the next unlocked, unstarted steps in tree order plus a sprint packed into `minutes`. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_plan and get_step, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The mention of 'tree order' and 'sprint' adds useful specificity.

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 clear context: it explains the free-tier vs project distinction and which parameters apply to anonymous callers. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of get_plan when you need next steps', but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when to use it. The 'Anonymous callers pass...' phrasing is a clear usage condition.

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?

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the distinction between anonymous read-only mode and project mode, and by indicating that the response reveals what that mode unlocks. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core function and defines key terminology. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description fully explains what the agent will learn: the connection mode and what it unlocks. No output schema is required for such a simple operation, and nothing else is needed to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The zero-parameter baseline is 4, and the description wisely avoids adding irrelevant parameter discussion.

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 states a specific function: report which mode the connection is in, either anonymous read-only or project, and what that mode unlocks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_directory or join_waitlist, which operate on resources rather than the caller's identity.

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 when an agent needs to understand the current connection's mode and permissions before proceeding. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and no sibling tool appears to cover this function.

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