plan_matrixscroll_rollout

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only' and describes the output structure (playbook, objection-handling map, compare hooks). This provides good transparency, though it could mention any side effects or auth requirements (unlikely needed).

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose statement, read-only and output summary, parameter list with line breaks, return type. No wasted words, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity of generating a rollout plan, the description covers the input parameters, output structure (one-liners, steps, proof assets, objections, hooks), and read-only nature. With an output schema present, the return value explanation suffices.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter: workspace (absolute path), audience (four specific personas with details), and goal (optional, default empty). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'generate' and resource 'rollout plan for the Matrix Scroll protocol' are specific and clear. The description distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on analysis, auditing, or brainstorming, not plan generation.

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 implicitly states when to use (need a rollout plan for Matrix Scroll) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons with sibling tools. The audience persona list gives context, but no exclusions.

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