earned_value_mgmt__eac_combined

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic purpose and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a calculation tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient but may be too brief. It includes a domain tag '[earned-value-mgmt]' at the start. However, it does not provide enough detail for an agent to fully understand the tool without external domain knowledge.

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 complexity of earned value management and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the formula, assumptions, or how the result should be interpreted. The agent would need significant domain knowledge to use this tool correctly.

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 5 parameters (bac, ac, ev, cpi, spi) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameter meanings, constraints, or relationships beyond the name. The phrase 'cost and schedule performance' hints at cpi and spi but does not elaborate on the other 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 clearly states that this tool calculates EAC (Estimate at Completion) considering both cost and schedule performance (CPI and SPI). It distinguishes from sibling tools like eac_cpi (only cost) and eac_atypical (atypical variance) by explicitly mentioning both factors.

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 use when both cost and schedule performance affect remaining work, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like eac_cpi or tcpi. The context from sibling tool names provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit usage instructions.

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