interpret_tech_stack_change

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

No annotations provided; description states what it returns (interpretation, timing, pitch angle, decision window) but gives no details on side effects, authorization, or error behavior. Minimal transparency for a read-only interpretation 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb, resource, and return summary. Efficient but could be more structured (e.g., separate sections for return and types).

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and valid inputs. Agent can infer behavior from types and return list.

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 is 0% but description lists enum values. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of each change type (e.g., what 'added_competitor' implies). Adds some value over schema but insufficient for full understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'interpret' and resource 'tech-stack change signal' and lists return values and valid types, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like 'interpret_expansion_signal'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but description does not mention contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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