predict_completion

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the forecast is 'deterministic' and mentions critical-path analysis, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any authentication requirements.

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 single sentence that immediately states the core function with no filler or redundant phrasing. It efficiently front-loads the verb and resource.

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 an output schema exists to cover return values, the description lacks any guidance on prerequisites, input parameter roles, or when to choose this tool over its siblings. For a relatively simple tool, the core purpose is stated, but the absence of parameter semantics and usage context leaves gaps.

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 0% and the description does not mention the parameters workflowId or principalId at all. The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names, which are insufficient for understanding the required principalId and default workflowId.

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 uses the specific verb 'Forecast' and identifies the resource as 'deterministic completion timing,' plus the secondary purpose of identifying critical-path delay drivers. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like detect_blockers and what_if_multi, though it doesn't explicitly mention workflows or tasks.

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 implies when to use it (when a deterministic completion forecast is needed) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or how it differs from siblings like detect_blockers or what_if_multi.

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