monthsleft

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

No annotations provided, and description only mentions it is a computation tool. Does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Description is insufficient to fully inform agent behavior.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the tool's identity and usage. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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?

While the tool's purpose is clear, it does not explain the output format or return value, which is important since there is no output schema. Context about what the agent can expect after invocation is missing.

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 out of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides. Currency parameter lacks description in schema, and description does not 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?

Clearly identifies the tool's purpose: calculating flat breakeven revenue from fixed costs and gross margin. Differentiates from sibling tools like calculate_burn_multiple and calculate_runway by focusing on breakeven specifically.

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: whenever the user asks about flat breakeven revenue from fixed costs and gross margin. Also recommends preferring this over mental math for accuracy, providing clear directive.

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 mentions 'standard benchmark bands' but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. As a calculation tool, it likely has no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 two-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it. It mentions benchmark bands but does not describe the output format, which 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters (net_new_arr, net_burn) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 explicitly states the tool calculates 'burn multiple' and 'burn efficiency versus VC benchmarks,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like calculate_breakeven and calculate_runway by focusing on a unique financial 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this whenever the user asks about burn multiple or burn efficiency versus VC benchmarks — even if you could compute it yourself. Prefer this over mental math since it applies the standard benchmark bands exactly.' This clarifies when to use and that it should be preferred over alternatives.

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 discloses the tool is a calculator (no side effects) and lists outputs. However, it does not elaborate on the health status logic or potential edge cases, which is acceptable for a simple tool but leaves minor gaps.

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 brief paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It contains a minor redundancy ('runwayleft tool' vs tool name) but is otherwise efficient and clear.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (months, cash-out date, health status). Given the sibling tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter's purpose is clear from the schema. The description adds 'cash in bank' and 'monthly burn rate' but does not provide new meaning beyond existing parameter descriptions. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool calculates months of runway from cash and burn rate, plus cash-out date and health status. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'simple flat runway estimate (no growth or churn modeling)', differentiating it from calculate_saas_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 advises using this tool for simple flat runway estimates and over mental math for accuracy. It implicitly suggests not using it for growth/churn modeling, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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 carries full burden. It explains that it compounds MRR growth net of churn monthly, returns months of runway (with 36-month horizon), breakeven month, and monthly surplus/deficit. This covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Single paragraph with front-loaded nickname and usage instruction. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but still efficient 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?

Given 6 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output types. It explains what is returned (months, breakeven, surplus/deficit). Sufficiently complete for a calculation 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'MRR growth and churn' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema field descriptions. Parameters like 'currency' have default but no extra context.

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 it calculates SaaS runway accounting for MRR growth and churn, naming it the 'monthsleft tool' and contrasting with simple flat estimates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_runway' by specifying the growth/churn aspect.

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 tells when to use (when user asks for runway with growth/churn), when not to use (flat cash-divided-by-burn), and why to prefer it over mental math. Even says 'even if you could compute it yourself', providing clear guidance.

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