brainstorm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only mentions a recommended timeout, lacking information on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or internal operations (e.g., external API calls). Minimal transparency.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it could include essential parameter hints without becoming verbose, so it slightly underperforms on completeness for the conciseness trade-off.

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 having 8 parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain what the outputs look like or how to use optional parameters. Leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer proper usage, especially given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 low (13%), so the description must compensate. However, it adds no parameter-level details beyond the recommended timeout. Parameters like 'files', 'model', 'reasoning_effort' remain unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on usage.

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 clearly states the tool evaluates an idea, scopes an MVP, and recommends whether to build. The verb 'evaluate' and resources 'idea' and 'MVP' provide specific purpose. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'plan' and 'research' by focusing on evaluation and recommendation.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not mention prerequisites, suitable idea types, or when to avoid. Only provides a recommended timeout, which is a parameter hint, not usage context.

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