How to build a capability map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the output structure well — eight steps each with output, failure mode, and effort, plus L1/L2/L3 criteria and single-step filtering — which clearly signals a read-only informational tool. However, it never states the return format (plain text, markdown, etc.) or behavior for out-of-range step values, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences front-loaded with the core purpose; the bilingual duplication is justified by the lang parameter supporting ja, en, and both. There is no filler, and each sentence carries distinct 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?

For a simple informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical facts: what the method contains, how to filter to a single step, and what the granularity guide includes. The only missing piece is an explicit statement of the return format, which is minor given the tool's nature.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter references ('Pass step for a single step', 'Includes L1/L2/L3 granularity criteria') largely restate what the schema already documents for step and includeLevels, adding no new semantic detail beyond the 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 description states a specific action ('Return an eight-step method for building a business capability map') and adds concrete content detail (each step has output, failure mode, and effort). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like draft_capability_map and check_capability_map by framing itself as a how-to method rather than a map generator or validator, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as draft_capability_map, check_capability_map, or the analogous value_stream_method. The only usage instruction, 'Pass step for a single step,' is about parameter invocation, not tool selection. With such a large sibling set, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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