earned_value_mgmt__eac_atypical

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core assumption (budgeted rates, one-off variance), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or output format. For a computational tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the skill prefix, and concise. However, it is too brief, sacrificing clarity. It uses 12 words, but could add parameter explanations without becoming verbose.

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's complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what EAC is, what the inputs represent, or what the output is. The assumption is stated but not enough for an agent to use it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does not define bac, ac, or ev. The only hint is 'remaining work at budgeted rates', which vaguely relates to bac. Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot correctly populate inputs.

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 this tool computes Estimate at Completion (EAC) assuming remaining work at budgeted rates, with the variance being one-off. It distinguishes from siblings like earned_value_mgmt__eac_cpi which uses cost performance index, and earned_value_mgmt__eac_combined which combines both. The specific condition 'variance was one-off' clarifies the atypical assumption.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when variance is one-off and remaining work is at budgeted rates, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks direct comparison to sibling tools like eac_cpi or tcpi, leaving the agent to infer the use case from context.

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