product_manager_get_jtbd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It explains the content (JTBD framing) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or what the return format is. The description is adequate but lacks full transparency about the tool's behavior.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the key concept (JTBD framing) and use case. Every sentence earns its place; there is no wasted text.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the concept and usage well. It could be improved by explicitly stating what the tool returns (e.g., a textual framework), but it is sufficiently complete for a simple informational tool.

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 tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline score for no parameters is 4.

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 the Jobs-To-Be-Done framing (Christensen) and explains what a job is. It specifies the use case: 'Use to reframe a feature request as the underlying job.' This distinguishes it from similar tools like 'product_manager_validate_job_statement'.

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 says when to use the tool ('Use to reframe a feature request as the underlying job'). It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the instruction is straightforward and sufficient for the intended use.

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