structure_cold_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a conditional behavior ('If omitted, the response reminds you: no signal, no pitch'), which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, or what happens on invalid input. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary output and target types. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema information beyond the enum list, which is also relevant context.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main output components (structure + swap variables) and a key behavioral rule about signal_found. It is fairly complete for a non-destructive tool, though it could mention error handling or the exact format of the response.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It lists the valid target_type values (though these are already in the enum) and indirectly explains signal_found's role via the 'If omitted' note. This adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully clarify the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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's action ('Get') and its specific output ('HOOK / BRIDGE / SOFT ASK structure plus the 4 swap variables'), and enumerates the valid target types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_cold_message or build_followup_ladder, which focus on different aspects of outreach.

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 use when preparing a cold pitch for one of the listed target types, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention any alternatives. It gives clear context but lacks direct exclusions.

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