analyze_setup_decision

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

The description indicates the tool returns a plan (non-destructive) but does not explicitly state authorization requirements or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, but it covers the basic behavioral trait of being a planner.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, output details, and execution instruction. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's output and next steps. With an output schema present, the lack of return value description is acceptable. However, it could mention prerequisites or error handling for completeness.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, leading to a baseline score.

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 builds a cross-tool analysis plan for a founder setup decision, listing exactly 6 sibling tools and synthesis instructions. This distinguishes it from other tools by specifying its role as a planner rather than an executor.

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 instructs the LLM to execute the plan and then call synthesize_report, providing clear post-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the orchestration role is implied.

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