earned_value_mgmt__variances

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the tool is purely computational (read-only) or has side effects, what output format to expect, or any prerequisites.

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 short but lacks substantive information. It is under-specified rather than concise; every sentence should add value, but this single line adds none.

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, the absence of an output schema, and the bare input schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's behavior, expected inputs, or return values.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no documentation for parameters (pv, ev, ac). The description adds nothing about what these parameters represent (e.g., planned value, earned value, actual cost) or how they map to variance calculations.

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 '[earned-value-mgmt] variances' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying which variances are computed (e.g., cost variance, schedule variance) or how they are derived. It provides no actionable understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 sibling EVM tools (e.g., eac_atypical, eac_cpi, tcpi). The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusion criteria.

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