Evaluate AI Opportunities

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so safety and idempotency are clear. The description adds valuable context about the evaluation criteria (business value, implementation readiness, etc.), which is not in annotations.

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 of 17 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and evaluation scope. It lacks mention that all parameters are optional, but that is implicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an evaluative tool.

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 parameters well. The description's high-level list of evaluation criteria does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 evaluates candidate AI workflow ideas across multiple dimensions (business value, readiness, repeatability, etc.), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_business_context' by being broader in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_business_context, assess_trust_control_risks). No when/not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions are given.

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