Needs-guarantees mapping scaffold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral details beyond its purpose. It only mentions 'the judging is yours,' which is about user action, not tool behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief parameter listing. It is front-loaded with the primary action and usage context, with no 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?

For a simple two-param tool with an output schema (not shown), the description provides enough context to understand purpose and when to use it. It mentions the output is a scaffold with structured questions and template, which is sufficient given the output schema handles details.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only restating the parameter names and types. 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 builds a 'needs<->guarantees scaffold' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like applicability_checklist, which may have overlapping purpose.

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 gives usage context: 'Use when applicability is non-obvious and you want structure for the judgment.' It provides clear guidance but does not mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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