crisis_planner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It thoroughly describes what the tool generates (the playbook contents), but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it requires any permissions, or if it has side effects. For a generation tool, this is somewhat acceptable, but still lacks explicit behavioral context beyond the output contents.

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 front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then flows into a comprehensive list of deliverables. It is a single dense sentence but every item is relevant and adds value. It could be split for better readability, but it is not bloated or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the major components of the generated playbook (severity levels, stakeholder communication matrix, response team structure, statement templates, FAQ bank, post-crisis review). This gives the agent a solid understanding of what the tool returns. However, it omits context like input/output format or edge cases, and given the tool's moderate complexity, it is nearly complete but not fully.

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 all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by giving examples of crisis-specific playbooks (security breach, outage, PR), which partially aligns with the 'potential_crises' parameter, but does not materially enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Generate crisis playbook' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the included components (4 severity levels, stakeholder communication matrix, response team structure, etc.), making the tool's scope distinct from sibling tools like pmf_scorecard or launch_commander. The purpose is unambiguous and deeply specified.

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 implies usage for crisis planning/preparedness via the phrase 'Crisis Response Framework' and the list of outputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the sibling tools are all in different domains, some explicit guidance would be helpful but is absent.

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