d3p_scope-cutter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it is an analysis tool with a cost, but does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or how the results are returned. Additionally, there is a discrepancy between the described parameters (constraints, product_description) and the actual schema (single 'params' string), which may mislead about tool behavior.

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 paragraph that includes necessary information but also redundancy (e.g., 'Parameters (pass as JSON string):' followed by listed parameters). It could be more concise and structured, such as listing parameters in a clearer format. Every sentence is not maximally efficient.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not explain what the tool returns. It also does not clarify how to properly embed the two described parameters into the single 'params' JSON string. For a tool with complexity, this lack of completeness hinders correct invocation.

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?

Although the schema only has one opaque parameter ('params'), the description clarifies that this string should contain two sub-parameters: 'constraints' and 'product_description', each with their own descriptions. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. However, the description implies these are separate parameters, which could confuse an agent expecting explicit properties.

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 it breaks down product ideas into MVP scope, identifying what to cut and ship first. This provides a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'd3p_roast-my-idea' or 'd3p_launch-brief', which may have overlapping purposes.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a category ('analysis') and cost, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools would be more appropriate. No usage guidelines are provided.

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