icp_evolution_tracker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool analyzes and tracks evolution, but doesn't disclose whether it generates a report, updates a stored ICP, or just returns analysis. It also doesn't mention any side effects or data requirements beyond the parameters.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's efficient, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the inputs are weighted, or what 'track' means operationally. Given the sibling tools are similar in domain, more context would help an agent select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it implies the parameters are inputs to an evolution analysis, but doesn't explain how they combine or what the output looks like. Baseline 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 states a clear verb ('Track') and resource ('how your ICP should evolve'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_deep_dive or icp_scoring_model. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 market-driven ICP evolution, and the parameter names (recent_wins, recent_losses, market_changes) suggest when to use it. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus icp_gap_analysis or icp_deep_dive, nor any exclusions.

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