public_growth_report

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 discloses the side effect of `record_snapshot` (appends to ledger), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or idempotency. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 exceptionally concise: a one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value 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?

An output schema exists but is not shown. The description omits details about what the comparison returns, how 'public GitHub traction' is defined, or the nature of the 'local MCP growth ledger.' Given the high sibling count and no annotations, more context would help.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: `record_snapshot` appends the GitHub snapshot, `target_contributors` tracks a campaign goal. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 purpose: 'compare real GitHub public traction with the local MCP growth ledger.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'achievement_card' or 'activation_funnel', which focus on different areas.

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 usage for comparing GitHub traction with a local ledger, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 25 sibling tools, clear usage context is lacking.

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