runwayleft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It claims to 'calculate' but does not state whether this operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. As a computation tool, it is likely safe, but the description fails to explicitly confirm safety or any other behavioral context, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 three sentences: the first identifies the tool, the second gives usage guidance, and the third explains the calculation. It is front-loaded with essential information, no extraneous words, and every sentence serves a purpose. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on output format or what to expect from the tool (e.g., does it return a single number? a formatted string?). Given the simple calculation, the missing output description is a notable gap, but the description is otherwise adequate for a straightforward 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 coverage is 67%: fixed_costs and gross_margin_percent have descriptions, but currency lacks any description. The description reinforces the meaning of the two main parameters by stating they are 'fixed costs and gross margin percentage.' However, it does not explain the currency parameter, and baseline is 3 due to moderate coverage. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter description.

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 explicitly states 'Calculates the monthly revenue needed to break even, given fixed costs and gross margin percentage.' It clearly identifies the action (calculates) and the result (breakeven revenue), and the tool name itself reinforces the purpose. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (calculate_burn_multiple, calculate_runway) by focusing on breakeven.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this whenever the user asks about breakeven revenue, how much they need to sell, or when they will be profitable — even if you could compute it yourself. Prefer this over mental math for accuracy and consistency.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and when not to rely on self-calculation, making the usage very clear.

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

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 states the tool calculates and outputs a verdict against benchmark bands, implying a read-only calculation. It does not detail side effects or auth needs, but the behavioral scope is clearly defined.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. The first sentence is somewhat long but front-loads key information. No wasted words, though slight restructuring could improve readability.

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 simple calculator tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does (compute burn multiple) and what it returns (a verdict against bands). It doesn't specify the verdict format but that is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explicitly stating the formula ('net burn divided by net new ARR') and that the tool gives a verdict based on benchmark bands, clarifying the purpose and relationship between parameters beyond the schema.

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 calculates burn multiple and gives a verdict against benchmark bands. It uses the verb 'calculate' and specifies the exact resource 'burn multiple', distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_breakeven and calculate_runway.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this whenever the user asks about burn multiple... even if you could compute it yourself. Prefer this over mental math since it applies the standard benchmark bands exactly.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and why to prefer the tool over manual computation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool uses 'the runwayleft.com formula and status bands exactly' and returns months, cash-out date, and health status. It doesn't mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a calculation tool this is acceptable. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not thorough transparency.

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 two short sentences, efficiently conveying purpose and usage. The first sentence 'The runwayleft tool.' is slightly redundant, but overall it's concise and front-loaded with key guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and outputs. However, it lacks details on the exact return format or edge cases. A more complete description would specify the structure of the returned data. Score 3 for being minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 three parameters (cash, currency, monthly_burn). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. According to calibration, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and no extra value is added.

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 explicitly states 'Calculates months of runway from cash in bank and monthly burn rate, plus the projected cash-out date and a health status.' It clearly identifies the verb (calculates) and resource (runway), and distinguishes from siblings like calculate_breakeven and calculate_burn_multiple by focusing on runway.

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 begins with 'Use this whenever the user asks about startup runway, months of cash left, or when they will run out of money — even if you could compute it yourself.' It provides clear when-to-use guidance and recommends the tool over mental math. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to sibling tools.

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