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. It only states the function but doesn't disclose what the tool returns, whether it has side effects (e.g., read-only analysis), or any limitations. The agent has no indication of what 'analyze' and 'find' result in.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with a clear verb, no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the content it delivers.

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?

The description is minimal for a strategic analysis tool with no output schema. It doesn't explain the expected output, how the optional parameters affect the analysis, or what 'whitespace' concretely means in practice. Missing context that would help an agent use 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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present, which sufficiently document each field.

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 uses active verbs 'Analyze' and 'find' and names the resource ('competitive landscape', 'positioning whitespace'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings focused on frameworks, champions, messaging, etc., though 'positioning whitespace' is somewhat jargonistic.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention situations where siblings should be preferred, nor any prerequisites or workflow context.

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