fittin_protect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently declares it is a 'SPECIALIZED EXTERNAL SYSTEM' and specifies it returns a 'prioritized protection roadmap' with components ranked by protectability, clone vulnerability, and strategic importance. It also states it operates exclusively on the user's description, covering key behavioral aspects without contradiction.

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 verbose with multiple sentences and a bullet-list of use cases; it repeats the core idea ('identifies protectable components') in different phrasings. While clear, it lacks conciseness and could be streamlined without losing clarity.

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's complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context: purpose, use cases, input scope, and output type. It could be improved with an example or note on output format, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides a detailed description of the 'description' parameter (100% coverage), instructing what to include (core mechanics, proprietary components, etc.). The tool description adds value by explaining the overall output but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states that the tool identifies protectable components and prioritizes IP protection actions, using specific verbs like 'identifies' and 'prioritizes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on mapping the IP opportunity and generating a prioritized roadmap, covering clone risk and investor narrative, which sets it apart from invention disclosure or patentability analysis.

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 lists multiple use cases (e.g., 'find what's protectable', 'understand IP moat options', 'get a prioritized list before fundraising') providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to sibling tools, which would strengthen guidance.

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