get_stakeholder_tips

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

With no annotations or output schema, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns advice, but does not specify the format (e.g., list, paragraphs) or whether it is generative or static. This is a minor gap for a simple advice tool, but not misleading.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that immediately names the tool's purpose and key scenarios. No wasted words.

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 one enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does and when to use it. It could mention the output format, but it is not necessary for basic usage.

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%, and the only parameter 'situation' has a detailed enum and description. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter context, so the 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('advice for handling stakeholders'), listing four concrete scenarios. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_conversion or build_color_palette, which target different design/UX tasks.

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 provides clear context by enumerating when to use the tool (presenting, feedback, objections, scope creep). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the listed scenarios strongly imply its domain, and the sibling tools are obviously different in scope.

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