analyze_scalability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so by disclosing what the output includes: 4 growth stages, bottleneck predictions for specific layers, caching strategy, and database scaling phases. This goes beyond just restating the tool's name.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second enumerates the plan's major sections. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably communicates what an agent can expect from the tool by listing key deliverables. It doesn't specify output format or limitations, but the parameter schemas are complete and the use case is clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds high-level context about growth stages and bottleneck predictions but doesn't clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Plan scaling from MVP to 1M users.' It further details the deliverables (growth stages, bottleneck predictions, caching strategy, database scaling phases), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like design_architecture or estimate_infrastructure.

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 provides a clear target context: use this when planning to scale a product from MVP to 1M users. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous and not misleading.

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