product_manager_get_strategy_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only references a framework and gives advice, but does not state that the tool is read-only, requires no parameters, or any other behavioral aspects.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the key concept and provide actionable advice. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 no parameters, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and high-level content. However, it does not detail the format of the returned rules or what specific information is included, leaving some gaps.

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, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 4, and the description provides context that the tool returns strategy rules without needing inputs.

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 states it provides product-strategy rules based on Cagan, with a clear purpose to cut scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on high-level strategy principles, but could be more explicit about the verb 'get'.

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 says 'Use to cut scope.', indicating a specific use case, but does not mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives like product_manager_get_mvp_scoping or product_manager_get_prioritization.

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