runwayleft

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states it calculates monthly revenue needed to break even, which is transparent and indicates a read-only computation. Additional details like idempotency are not needed for this simple tool.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, usage guidelines, and what the tool calculates. Every sentence is essential and no redundant content.

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 and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and usage. It could mention the return format, but the purpose and inputs are well-covered.

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 has 67% description coverage. Description adds context by naming the parameters ('fixed costs and gross margin percentage') and clarifying gross margin percent format ('e.g. 70 for 70%'), which adds value 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 breakeven revenue, with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly recommending use for breakeven-related queries and preferring it over mental math.

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 when-to-use scenarios (breakeven revenue, sales needed, profitability). Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools have distinct purposes, so guidance 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 the full burden. It discloses the calculation logic but does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies data. The 'verdict' is mentioned but not explained in detail, leaving ambiguity about the output format.

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 wordy, with phrases like 'The runwayleft burn multiple tool' and 'Prefer this over mental math since it applies the standard benchmark bands exactly' that could be condensed. It is front-loaded with the purpose but contains redundant information. Four sentences could be trimmed to two.

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 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality but omits details about the verdict format or return structure. Contextual clues from siblings help, but the description itself could be more complete.

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%, meaning both parameters (net_burn, net_new_arr) are already described in the schema. The description adds the phrases 'Net cash burned' and 'Net new ARR added', which closely match the schema descriptions but do not provide substantial additional meaning. 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 the burn multiple and gives a verdict against VC benchmark bands. It uses specific verbs ('calculates') and identifies the resource ('burn multiple'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_breakeven and calculate_runway by specifying when it should be used over mental math.

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 states when to use the tool: whenever the user asks about burn multiple, burn efficiency, or comparisons to VC benchmarks. It advises preferring this tool over mental math. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the sibling context implies alternatives for other metrics.

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 cover behavior. It mentions returning formula and status bands exactly, implying accuracy, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations. Adequate but minimal.

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, front-loading the tool's name and purpose. It could lose the redundant first sentence ('The runwayleft tool.') but is otherwise 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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists outputs (runway, cash-out date, health status). It does not specify units or format, which would be helpful. Sufficient for a simple calculation tool but could be more thorough.

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 the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that inputs are cash and burn rate. Currency is mentioned in schema but not in 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 clearly states it calculates months of runway, cash-out date, and health status, with a specific verb ('calculates') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_breakeven 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?

Explicitly advises using this tool when the user asks about runway or cash left, even if mental math is possible, and emphasizes accuracy and consistency. No exclusion criteria are given, but the guidance is clear.

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