GitDealFlow

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 only states that it retrieves a signal, offering no details about output structure, success/failure behavior, rate limits, or side effects. This is minimally informative and leaves key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately sized for a tool with minimal 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 the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'signal' contains, how it is returned, or provide any context for using the tool correctly, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'startup'. It does not specify whether the value should be a name, slug, ID, or any format requirements, leaving the parameter semantically ambiguous.

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 gets an 'engineering momentum signal' for a specific startup, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_cities, list_sectors, and search_startups by focusing on a per-startup signal rather than broad listing or search.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, when to prefer this over search_startups, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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 stand alone. It discloses the core behavior (listing all tracked cities with startup counts), which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not mention pagination, authentication, or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple list tool.

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 of six words, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and resource. Every word contributes, making it highly concise.

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 list tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed (all tracked cities) and what data is included (startup counts). It implies the return format (a list) and has no need for disambiguation or alternatives.

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 provides complete coverage (vacuously). The description adds context about the output (startup counts), which is useful, but there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 ('List') and resource ('cities') with additional detail ('startup counts'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sectors and search_startups by focusing on cities.

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 no explicit when/when-not guidance or references to alternative tools. Usability is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about safety, ordering, or output format. It is sufficient but minimal.

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 and output without any wasted words.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does (list all sectors) and what it returns (startup counts). It could be slightly more descriptive about the output structure, but it is sufficient for such a simple 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema confirms there are none.

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 'List' with a clear resource ('tracked sectors') and adds a distinguishing detail ('with startup counts'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_startup_signal, list_cities, and search_startups.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to retrieve all tracked sectors along with their startup counts. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only states the search action without disclosing whether it is a read-only operation, what response structure to expect, or any special behavior for empty results or multiple matching criteria. The term 'tracked' adds slight context about the dataset but no behavioral traits.

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?

One short sentence fully front-loads the core purpose. No redundant words or restatements of the tool name.

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?

Despite a simple single-parameter signature, the tool is missing critical usage details: parameter syntax, whether the query is optional (0 required params), and how to relate to sibling tools. The absence of output schema and annotations makes the description insufficient for confident 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 schema has a single string parameter 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description says search by sector/city/keyword but does not specify how the query parameter encodes these dimensions (e.g., free text vs. structured syntax, combinability). This leaves the agent guessing how to construct the argument.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource 'tracked startups' with clear facets (sector, city, keyword). It distinguishes from siblings like list_cities/list_sectors which likely provide dropdown values, and get_startup_signal which may fetch details for a single startup.

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?

Provides clear context that the tool searches startups by sector, city, or keyword, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools or how to discover valid sector/city values using list_sectors/list_cities. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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