adopt_vs_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'analysis' without detailing what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a recommendation, costs breakdown). There is no mention of side effects, limitations, or expected output.

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 concise with a clear trigger line followed by a brief overview and parameter list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, though the parameter section could be more succinct.

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?

The tool has an output schema (according to context signals), but the description does not explain what the analysis returns. For a decision tool, understanding the output is crucial. The description also omits prerequisites or how to interpret results.

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 0% description coverage, so the description adds basic semantics for all three parameters. However, the descriptions are minimal: 'What capability is needed' and 'Description of the build/adopt approach'—they are not detailed.

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: performing a rigorous build-vs-buy analysis accounting for hidden costs. The explicit trigger 'Call this EVERY TIME you consider writing a custom utility, component, or logic that might exist as a library' provides a specific context, distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools.

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 gives a clear usage trigger: whenever considering writing custom code that might be available as a library. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is well-defined.

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