run_infracost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run infracost breakdown' without indicating side effects (e.g., network calls, file modifications), error behavior, or resource usage. The agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only or destructive operation.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral information without losing brevity. Still, it is efficiently 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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not cover important aspects like return format (likely JSON), error handling, or prerequisites (infracost installation). The tool has optional parameters and no required fields, but the description does not help the agent understand what a typical invocation looks like. Sibling tools provide more context, so this one feels incomplete.

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 three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds marginal value. The descriptions are minimal but sufficient: path indicates default value and type, extraArgs is generic, timeoutMs adds constraints. No examples or format details are provided.

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 verb (run), the specific tool (infracost breakdown), and the target (Terraform directory). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like run_tflint or run_trivy, which focus on linting or security scanning.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description does not mention that infracost must be installed or that the tool is intended for cost estimation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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