infracost_output

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 does not mention side effects, whether the operation is read-only, how output is delivered (stdout, file), or authentication requirements (despite an apiKey parameter). The description restates the function without adding operational context.

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, focused sentence that states the core purpose and provides three concrete examples of formats. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits details about how the path is resolved, what fields control, what the output looks like, or any execution context. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and requirements.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics—it only mentions output formats, which aligns with the 'format' parameter but does not enrich understanding. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters.

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 a specific verb 'Format' and clearly identifies the resource 'Infracost JSON output' while listing example output formats (table, html, github-comment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infracost_breakdown or infracost_diff, which focus on generating or comparing cost data rather than reformatting output.

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 this tool is used when Infracost JSON output needs to be converted to another format, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like infracost_diff or infracost_comment. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, so usage context is only implied.

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