sc:estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the tool's function but does not state whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. This lack of transparency limits the agent's understanding.

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 concise, using a single sentence to convey purpose. It also includes metadata (category and priority) which is useful but not excessive. It is well-structured but lacks additional context that could be added without verbosity.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain the nature of the output or any prerequisites. However, the schema covers the parameters well, so it is minimally adequate.

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 schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including optional flags and agent options. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 that the tool performs evidence-based project estimation with risk assessment, using a specific verb (estimate) and resource (project). While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sc:analyze or sc:brainstorm, the unique purpose is implied through the focus on estimation and risk.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer any contextual hints for invocation, such as prerequisites or scenarios.

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