deva_cost_estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'free,' which is useful context, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the estimate output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Estimate karma cost for a resource call before execution (free).' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context without any wasted words, making it highly 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or integration with sibling tools. For a cost-estimation tool in a complex server with many siblings, more context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and context, which compensates for the lack of parameters. However, it doesn't detail the structure of the 'Estimate payload' mentioned in the schema description, slightly limiting semantic clarity.

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: 'Estimate karma cost for a resource call before execution (free).' It specifies the verb ('estimate'), resource ('karma cost'), and context ('before execution'), distinguishing it from siblings that perform actual operations (e.g., deva_agent_me_get, deva_storage_file_upload). However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling tools it estimates costs for, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 on when to use this tool: 'before execution' to estimate costs, implying it should be used prior to invoking other resource calls. It also notes it's 'free,' encouraging use without cost concerns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, such as which sibling tools it applies to, preventing a higher score.

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