earned_value_mgmt__tcpi

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states the purpose. It does not disclose output format, formula, constraints (e.g., BAC > EV), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a compute-only tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, failing to earn its place as a complete guidance.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is under-specified. The agent cannot determine what the return value looks like or handle edge cases, making it incomplete for reliable use.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions BAC. No explanation of ac, ev, or their units/expectations is provided, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 it computes a cost performance metric related to remaining work to hit BAC, which identifies it as TCPI. It distinguishes from siblings like EAC and variance tools by mentioning 'to hit BAC' specifically.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., EAC, variances). The description does not provide context for appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.

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