infracost_generate_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'sensible defaults' and 'pre-filled templates' but fails to disclose what happens to the generated file (e.g., whether it's saved, returned as output, or has side effects). The behavior of onlyJson, outputFilePath, and includeGuidance is not explained in the description, leaving significant 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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly adds the relationship to infracost_configure. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a simple function and the schema fully describes its parameters. However, there is no output schema and no annotation context. The description doesn't explain the return format, how the generated file is delivered, or how to use the output, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's overall behavior. It is adequate but not 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including resource types and usage file options. The description adds a small amount of context about 'sensible defaults' and 'pre-filled templates', but overall does not meaningfully enhance the parameter understanding 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 generates an Infracost usage file for specified resource types, using a specific verb ('Generate') and object ('usage file'). It also differentiates itself by mentioning it complements infracost_configure, though it doesn't distinguish from all siblings.

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 usage context by stating it 'Complements infracost_configure by providing pre-filled templates', indicating a relationship with that tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like breakdown or diff, nor does it provide exclusions or clear use-case guidance.

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