Value Engine Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the engine stages, metrics, and return JSON structure (engine definition, health score, etc.), providing rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 approximately 110 words, with a clear bulleted structure for engine stages. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While efficient, the bullet list could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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's complexity (three engines), the description covers inputs, outputs, and examples well. It does not reference sibling tools, but the output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: engine_type options ('growth', 'fulfillment', 'innovation'), source options ('auto', 'hubspot', 'sample') with fallback logic, and pipeline_id as optional. This fully compensates for the schema deficiency.

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 analyzes a Value Engine (Growth, Fulfillment, or Innovation), listing stages and metrics for each. This specific verb+resource purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like score_pipeline_health or identify_constraint.

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 clear context by enumerating the three engine types, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which could help with sibling differentiation.

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