runwayleft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but for a simple calculation tool, the lack of such details is acceptable. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 reasonably concise, with three sentences that cover purpose, usage guidance, and formula. It could be slightly tighter by removing 'The runwayleft breakeven tool' opening, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important info.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context for usage but does not specify the return format or confirm that it is a read-only operation. For a complete understanding, the agent might need to infer the output type.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, stating that the tool uses given fixed costs and gross margin percentage. The 'currency' parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the description, so the description does not fully compensate.

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 breakeven revenue given fixed costs and gross margin percentage. It uses specific verbs like 'calculates' and identifies the resource (breakeven revenue), distinguishing it from siblings like calculate_burn_multiple 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('whenever the user asks about breakeven revenue...') and even recommends it over mental math for accuracy. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools cover different financial metrics, providing implicit differentiation.

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 provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes the calculation and verdict but lacks disclosure of side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or permissions. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Four sentences; no fluff. Front-loaded with tool identity, then usage, then preference, then computation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), coverage is good. Explains input, computation, and output type ('verdict'). Missing return value details but acceptable for this complexity.

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%, so parameters are already documented. Description repeats their names but adds no extra meaning (units, ranges, format). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('calculates', 'gives') and identifies the exact resource ('burn multiple'). It clearly distinguishes from mental math and implies differentiation from sibling tools by focusing on a specific metric.

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 states when to use (user asks about burn multiple, efficiency, VC benchmarks) and prefers over mental math. No explicit when-not or alternative tool comparisons, but context is 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 full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'the runwayleft.com formula and status bands exactly', implying a precise calculation without side effects. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits beyond the calculation.

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 somewhat verbose, starting with 'The runwayleft tool.' and a lengthy instruction. While it front-loads purpose, it could be more concise by removing redundant phrasing. However, it remains comprehensible.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it explains inputs, outputs (runway months, cash-out date, health status), and usage context. It lacks explicit output data types or format, but the context signals indicate high schema coverage, so this is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it rephrases 'cash in bank' and 'monthly burn rate' but does not elaborate on formats, constraints, or edge cases. The currency parameter is mentioned with an example, but no further detail.

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 months of runway from cash and monthly burn rate, and provides projected cash-out date and health status. It explicitly addresses startup runway queries and distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_breakeven and calculate_burn_multiple.

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 on when to use: 'whenever the user asks about startup runway, months of cash left, or when they will run out of money.' It also recommends preferring this tool over mental math for accuracy. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though sibling tools suggest alternative contexts.

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