analyze_initiative

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: the tool does not call an LLM, it loads plan-knowledge.md context, forces a SOP, and returns a structured checklist for the AI to fill inline. With no annotations provided, the description fully compensates by detailing what the tool does and does not do.

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 thorough but slightly verbose; still, every sentence contributes value. It is well-structured, starting with purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral details, then framework options, and ending with return fields.

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 tool's complexity (no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, return value, and integration with other tools (add_initiative, score_initiative). An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters: initiative_id (required, string), and framework (optional, with enumerated options: 'default', 'lite', 'lean_canvas' and descriptions of each). Also describes the return value structure, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Describes a specific action: forcing a senior-PM analysis SOP on an initiative before scoring. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like score_initiative and add_initiative by stating it is a prerequisite step and that it does not call an LLM but scaffolds the prompt.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'WHENEVER an idea originates from chat / WebFetch and lacks a thorough product analysis.' Also provides a clear sequence of next steps: after filling the checklist, call add_initiative(overwrite=true) then score_initiative.

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