How to build a value stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns a 7-step method, that each step includes an output and failure mode, and that passing `step` returns a single step. This makes the behavior predictable and reveals the key parameter-driven behavior, though it doesn't discuss side effects or state changes, which is appropriate for a pure information-returning tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it states the core purpose, the approach, what each step contains, and the optional `step` parameter in a compact bilingual format. Every clause earns its place, and the bilingual repetition is purposeful given the language toggle.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the number of steps, the working-backwards approach, the content of each step, and the single-step option. It does not specify the output's formatting or structure, but that level of detail is not essential for a method-returning tool.

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 mention of the `step` parameter ('Pass `step` for a single step') adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Return a single step (1–7)'. The `lang` parameter is also already fully described in the schema, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource: it returns a seven-step method for building a value stream, working backwards from receiver and end state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diagram_value_stream, which produce diagrams rather than steps, and capability_method, which targets capabilities. The bilingual phrasing reinforces the intended purpose.

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 usage context is implied: it is the tool to call when you need the step-by-step method for building a value stream. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus related tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is present but left to inference.

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