Pitch deck blueprint

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

The description is transparent about reading the Obra CTO report if present and the subsequent actions. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention any side effects, but for a blueprint-generation tool, this is likely read-only. The behavior is clearly described.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the purpose. Each sentence adds value: first sentence defines output, second gives usage context, third explains workflow. It is concise and well-structured, though slightly wordy in the first sentence.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (slide structure, evidence bar, research prompts, artifacts). It also covers prerequisites (reading Obra) and follow-up actions (build deck, ask CFO). This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (path, stage, sector). The description adds some context (path is for Obra report, stage defaults to pre-seed, sector is optional) but largely reinforces the schema. The value added is modest, earning a baseline 3.

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 returns 'the framework for a fundable pitch deck at your stage' and details the specific outputs: slide structure, evidence bar, research prompts, and artifacts. This distinguishes it from siblings prepare_assessment and score_funding_readiness, which focus on different tasks.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you have no deck yet or a weak one.' It also provides a workflow: reads Obra CTO report, then build deck and ask CFO to rank it. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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