get_interview_elevator_pitch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a non-mutating read, and the description clarifies the output structure (STAR format with production metrics), but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, error behavior for invalid scenario IDs, or any access requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately identifies the action and the returned artifact.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description explains the returned content well (STAR-structured elevator pitch with metrics). It misses usage context and explicit response format details, but is otherwise sufficiently complete.

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%: the single required parameter scenario_id is documented in the schema as 'The scenario slug or ID'. The description does not add further parameter syntax or validation details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and a precisely qualified resource ('senior DevOps/SRE candidate elevator pitch structured in the STAR framework'). It adds meaningful scope (quantifiable production metrics) that distinguishes the output from a generic text getter, and no sibling tool in the list overlaps with this interview-pitch purpose.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_scenario_runbook, nor does it provide any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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