generate_pitch_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'generate a concise pitch summary', which implies a read-only text generation but gives no details on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if input is insufficient. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with 12 words, highly concise with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 4 input parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't specify the output format (text or structured), length constraints, or how this tool differs from siblings. For a generation task, more contextual completeness is expected.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain parameter relationships, constraints beyond minLength, or provide examples.

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 generates a concise hackathon or startup pitch summary for an idea. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('pitch summary'), and the context 'hackathon or startup' adds specificity. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the sibling tools have distinct purposes (difficulty estimation and validation), making the differentiation implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given.

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