product_manager_opportunity_vs_solution

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It transparently states that the tool returns the rubric for the user to apply—it does not classify. That's a key behavioral trait. Could mention output format but is generally good.

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, zero waste. The most important information (what it returns and a critical constraint) is upfront. Highly efficient.

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 tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and use case. It could detail the rubric content slightly, but not necessary.

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% for the single optional parameter. Description adds context that the statement is for applying the rubric, but doesn't significantly extend beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a rubric for the user to apply, explicitly says it does not classify, and gives the purpose of reframing solution-shaped requests. This distinguishes it from sibling 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?

Provides clear context for use: reframe a solution-shaped request. However, does not explicitly mention when not to use or point to alternatives among sibling product manager tools.

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