impact_map_alternatives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'map competitive landscape and alternatives' but does not indicate whether the tool performs external research, generates a report, modifies any data, or requires any specific setup. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. The '(M phase)' parenthetical is somewhat cryptic and could be replaced with more useful context, but overall the message is compact and 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a one-line description, the tool does not explain what the agent should expect as a result, how the mapping is performed, or how it fits with the sibling impact_* tools. Given five parameters and an open-ended purpose, this is incomplete.

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?

The input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, providing 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema itself is self-explanatory.

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 specific action and resource: 'Map competitive landscape and alternatives.' This distinguishes it from siblings focused on other phases like 'identify champions' or 'anchor market.' However, the parenthetical '(M phase)' is unexplained and could confuse an agent about what 'M' stands for.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase '(M phase)' hints at a sequence in a broader framework, but it does not state prerequisites, when to prefer this tool, or when to use sibling tools instead.

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