predictive_burn_rate__growth_adjusted_runway

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions growth-adjusted calculation but fails to disclose rounding behavior, handling if floor is never reached, or input validation. Users cannot anticipate tool behavior beyond the single sentence.

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?

Single efficient sentence, but lacks structure like bullet points or sections to organize information. Under-specification reduces effectiveness.

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?

Tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. Description does not explain return format, error conditions, or parameter constraints (e.g., integer vs float). Incomplete for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 description must explain each parameter. Only three of five parameters are implied ('cash', 'floor', 'monthly growth'), and no explicit definitions are given for 'current_burn' or 'max_months'. Missing parameter meanings and optionality.

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 tool calculates months until cash drops below floor, accounting for monthly burn growth. It distinguishes from siblings like 'simple_runway' by explicitly mentioning growth-adjusted calculation.

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 like 'simple_runway' or 'net_burn'. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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