pmf_scorecard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analytical behavior (5-dimension weighted scoring, gap identification, action plan generation) and gives context on inputs (metrics, feedback). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but 'generate' implies a safe, read-only analytical action.

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 all essential information: purpose, dimensions, weights, output components. It is front-loaded with the tool's primary function and has no redundant words. Every clause contributes to understanding.

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 no output schema, the description adequately outlines what the result will include (scorecard, gap identification, action plan). It provides enough detail for an agent to know what to expect, though it does not specify the exact return format or how to interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the analysis dimensions but does not map them to specific parameters or add syntax/format details. It adds no meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 generates a comprehensive PMF scorecard with specific dimensions and weighting. It identifies the exact output (scorecard, gap identification, 90-day action plan) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its specific focus on PMF assessment.

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 use for product-market fit assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like competitive_intel or customer_interview_kit. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, giving only implied usage context.

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