pm_workflow_stakeholder_alignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes the return format but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only, no resource creation) or any constraints beyond parameters. This is inadequate for a tool that returns a plan.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured with effort level and steps. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Use this tool to get a complete workflow plan' overlaps with the first sentence), but it remains clear and scannable.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description explains the return format and steps. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling workflows and does not detail the structure of the returned Markdown plan, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 100% for both parameters (topic and context). The description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 a Stakeholder Alignment workflow plan and builds a case for leadership buy-in. However, it does not distinguish this workflow from sibling workflow tools like pm_workflow_feature_kickoff or pm_workflow_lean_startup, which serve different purposes.

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 offers minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It says 'Build a compelling case for leadership buy-in before committing resources,' but no explicit criteria for selection over alternatives or exclusions are given, which is insufficient given many sibling workflow tools.

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