The FishPath Tool has been used globally to assist over 250 fisheries to determine appropriate options for data collection, stock assessment and management measures, whether in isolation, or as part of a harvest strategy. However, many data- and capacity-limited fisheries struggle with overwhelm given the large number of diagnostic questions and the universe of options within the Tool. Users can also have doubts about answering questions “blind” without immediately seeing the ramifications of the response, and general questionnaire fatigue. To address this, we present two alternate means of providing a “lighter-touch” entry point to the Tool. The first, which was pilot tested in a Timor Leste engagement, involves manually filtering the question list to questions invoking strong warning caveats across multiple options, and selectively removing options unsuitable for the context, a priori. The second is a more general, “options first” approach that uses high-level questions to filter options. Users then answer only questions relevant to this subset of options, and that invoke the strongest warning caveats. Users can iteratively build up the number of options considered. These alternate entry points to the FishPath Tool likely address the concerns preventing its application in more capacity-limited contexts, while preserving the integrity of its content.