interpret_growth_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the behavior: interpreting a growth signal and returning its meaning plus the fix order. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect, though edge cases or side effects are not mentioned (though likely none exist).

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?

A single sentence packs all essential information: the tool's function, the specific input values, and the output type. No redundant words or repetition of schema elements.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the input domain and the returned content. It lacks explicit details about response format, but for this use case the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the enum values and explains that they represent growth patterns, adding context beyond the bare schema. It does not explain each pattern in detail, but the self-descriptive enum names make this sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as interpreting growth patterns, enumerates the specific signal values it handles, and states the output (meaning and fix order). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on positioning, bio, or strategy.

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 the tool should be used when a user has one of the listed growth signals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternative tools. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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