craft_gtm_analyzer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states what the tool returns: 'CRAFT score 0-100, dimension assessment, gap analysis, and improvement recommendations.' This provides essential transparency about outputs. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but given the read-only nature of an analyzer and the explicit output description, this is sufficient for a 4.

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 sentence that packs in the tool's purpose, the CRAFT framework, and the output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the tool name and core action, making it quickly 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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return values and the analysis criteria. It could be more complete by adding explicit context on when to choose this over sibling tools or noting any input formats, but the provided information is sufficient for basic selection and invocation. A score of 4 reflects this slight gap.

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%, with all four parameters having meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Per the guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters; the description here does not go beyond that.

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 function: 'Analyze any GTM strategy document against CRAFT principles'. It specifies the resource (GTM strategy document), the action (analyze), and the unique framework (CRAFT: Character, Result, Artifact, Frame, Timeline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on different GTM aspects like pmf_scorecard or launch_commander.

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 for use: it is for analyzing GTM strategy documents against CRAFT. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It implies a specific analytical niche but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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