d3p_roast-my-idea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (one-paragraph roast), detection of common tropes, cost (5 sats), and endpoint. It is transparent about the behavior, though it does not detail any limitations or side effects, which are minimal for a text 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 concise (2-3 sentences) with a natural, engaging tone. It includes all essential information without redundancy. A slightly more structured format could improve scanability, but it is efficient and front-loaded with the core action.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is complete. It covers the input, the process, the output characteristics, and even extra flavor ('Cheaper than a bad cofounder'). No critical information is missing for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the required parameter 'idea' as a string, specifies the format (JSON string), and provides context ('Your startup idea to be roasted'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action: 'Submit your startup idea and receive a brutally honest one-paragraph roast.' It specifies the resource (startup idea) and the output (roast), and distinguishes from siblings like d3p_vibe-check by its humorous tone and focus on roasting.

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 when to use – when you want a roast of a startup idea – but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. The fun tone suggests it's not for serious analysis, but no direct guidance on alternatives like d3p_vibe-check or d3p_shitpost.

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