portfolio_triage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about scoring and capping, but the word 'enforces' could be ambiguous. However, it does not contradict annotations, and it provides additional behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not describe the output format (e.g., a ranked list). The dependency on unit_economics is helpful, but the lack of output details is a gap.

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 coverage for the one parameter (max_active) is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds limited context: it mentions enforcing a cap, which aligns with the parameter. No further semantic improvement beyond 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 clearly states the tool ranks all pipelines that have passed unit-economics using a Profit Velocity Score and enforces an active pipeline cap. The verb+resource combination is specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like unit_economics and passive_portfolio.

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 implies it should be used after unit_economics (pipelines past unit-economics) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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