Route a founder painpoint

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

The description adds the behavioral trait 'this does not perform external actions,' which clarifies its read-only nature beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false). This is valuable context, though additional details (e.g., what triggers a pack selection, potential errors) are omitted.

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 concise sentences: the first defines the core action, the second adds a crucial caveat. No filler or redundant content. Front-loaded with the primary function.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 6 required, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'lightweight action preview' is, how the pack is selected, or what the return value contains. The agent has insufficient information to effectively invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any of the 11 parameters (6 required). The parameters (offer, stage, bottleneck, etc.) are not described, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond their names. This is a critical gap.

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's purpose: diagnose a solo-founder painpoint, select a Solodot execution pack, and return a lightweight action preview. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (export, generate, get, review) by focusing on routing and diagnosis.

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 mentions the tool does not perform external actions, which indirectly guides when to use it (for non-execution tasks). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it compared to siblings or alternative approaches. No usage context or exclusion criteria are provided.

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