competitive_trap_setter

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions generating questions and tactics but fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The 'landmine' term hints at strategy but lacks concrete behavior details.

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?

Two short sentences with a clear front-loaded action. No unnecessary words, but the second sentence is somewhat vague. Still efficient and to the point.

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 8 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks explanation of key parameters like 'trap_type' or 'evaluation_stage' and does not cover return value or usage patterns, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, meaning each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate; it does not enhance understanding of parameter interactions or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates landmine questions and competitive positioning tactics, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discovery_question_bank' by focusing on exposing competitor weaknesses during evaluation.

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?

Indicates use during evaluation and emphasizes positivity ('without being negative'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, missing a stronger differentiation from sibling tools.

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