Score funding readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool reads the Obra CTO report for technical risk and produces dashboard components. However, it does not mention side effects, performance, or what happens if inputs are missing, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 that packs key information, but it is somewhat dense and could benefit from structured formatting. It remains concise without superfluous content.

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 13 parameters, many required nested objects, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists dashboard components but does not explain how inputs map to outputs or provide usage examples, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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 only 8%, and the description adds no parameter explanations beyond hinting at the 'path' parameter via 'Reads the Obra CTO report'. With 13 parameters, many nested, the description fails to clarify their roles, severely limiting tool usability.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Turn your structured assessment into a stage-calibrated funding-readiness dashboard', listing dashboard components. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on scoring after assessment, while siblings 'deck_blueprint' and 'prepare_assessment' are about other phases.

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 this tool should be used after 'prepare_assessment' by referencing that output, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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