Prepare funding assessment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: reads materials from local path, returns contents with rubric, and that materials stay local. It also describes the workflow in which the host model performs further assessment, ensuring transparency about the tool's role.

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 moderately concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'YOU, the host model'). It is structured with a clear first sentence stating the primary action, then explaining the workflow. It could be slightly more terse, but it remains readable and informative.

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 the moderate complexity (3 parameters, all optional), the description is fairly complete. It explains what input to provide, what the tool returns, and how it integrates with the sibling tool score_funding_readiness. However, it does not describe the return format in detail, which is a minor gap.

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 context beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'path' defaults to working directory, 'files' is an optional explicit list, and 'stage' includes examples. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter usage beyond what the schema 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 reads founder's funding materials from a local path and returns contents with a rigorous assessment rubric, distinguishing itself from sibling tools by specifying the subsequent workflow (host model assesses and calls score_funding_readiness). The verb 'prepare' is appropriate and the resource is well-defined.

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 explains when to use the tool (to prepare a funding assessment) and mentions the subsequent step (calling score_funding_readiness). It also notes reading the Obra CTO report if present. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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