mkt_gtm_design

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait (read-only, non-executing, non-sending, non-predicting) and that constraint checks are performed, but it does not say what happens when constraints fail, what the 'result contract' contains, or how the nested proposal/constraints objects are treated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the read-only qualifier and uses semicolons to separate capability from exclusions. Dense but efficient, with no filler; only the terse phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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 tool with 5 parameters, two nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is too thin. The return value ('result contract') is undefined, constraint-check outcomes are unspecified, and parameter contracts are absent, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call confidently.

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% across 5 parameters including two nested objects, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps the decomposition to task, object, and objective (目标); it says nothing about the shape or role of 'proposal' and 'constraints', or the expected string formats. Significant compensation 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?

States a specific verb and resource: read-only GTM design that decomposes a growth task into object×objective×mechanism×channel, runs constraint checks, and emits a result contract. The negative scope ('does not execute, send, or predict') implicitly separates it from execution-oriented siblings like mkt_action or mkt_run_queue, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 read-only framing and the 'design' verb imply when to use it (planning, not execution), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no named alternatives such as mkt_plan_lint or mkt_strategy, and no stated preconditions. Guidance is inferable but not spelled out.

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