find_underused_resource_classes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context. It discloses that the tool expects specific CSV columns (job_name, resource_class, etc.), works with a subset of CircleCI usage API output, and returns a summary report. It also notes that the CSV path must be absolute and provides a default threshold. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance, or output format details, leaving some 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details parameters and CSV requirements. Each sentence adds value—none are redundant. It uses bullet-like formatting for parameters and clear explanations without waste, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (analyzing CSV data with specific columns), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, CSV expectations, and output type ('summary report'). However, it doesn't detail the report's structure or potential errors, which could help an agent use it more effectively.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'csvFilePath' must be an absolute path and requires resolution if relative, and that 'threshold' is a usage percentage with default 40. It also clarifies the CSV column expectations and how the tool processes them. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Analyzes a CircleCI usage data CSV file to find jobs/resource classes with average or max CPU/RAM usage below a given threshold.' It specifies the verb ('analyzes'), resource ('CircleCI usage data CSV file'), and outcome ('find jobs/resource classes with usage below threshold'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on underused resource analysis rather than other CircleCI operations like downloading data or running pipelines.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to identify underused resource classes from CSV data. It implies usage with CircleCI usage API output. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'download_usage_api_data' for obtaining the CSV). The guidance is practical but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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