marketing_get_gtm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's content (motions and playbook) but does not explicitly state it is a read-only informational lookup or mention any side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences totaling 35 words, front-loaded with content and followed by a usage directive. Every sentence is valuable, no fluff.

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 and zero parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool returns (motions and playbook) and when to use it. It could mention the output format, but for a knowledge retrieval tool, this is complete enough.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the type of information returned, compensating for the lack of parameter details. No further parameter semantics needed.

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 provides go-to-market motions and a product-launch playbook, with specific examples (PLG, sales-led, etc.) and a clear verb ('decide how it reaches the market'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like marketing_get_positioning by focusing on GTM strategy.

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 includes an explicit usage directive ('Use to decide how it reaches the market'), giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the sibling list implies other marketing tools for specific aspects.

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