predictive_burn_rate__simple_runway

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It discloses the key behavioral trait of returning 'inf' for cash-flow positive scenarios, which is crucial for agent decision-making. For a simple math computation this is sufficient, though it could mention side effects or data requirements.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, edge-case behavior, and underlying assumption. Every word adds value.

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 simple nature of the tool (two numeric inputs, straightforward calculation), the description is adequate but lacks parameter definitions and explicit input constraints. It sufficiently describes the output behavior but could be more complete.

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 does not explain the parameters 'cash' and 'avg_net_burn' beyond their names. The description adds no meaning to what the schema provides; a user unfamiliar with the domain would not know what values to provide.

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 computes months of runway at constant burn, and notably returns 'inf' if cash-flow positive. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'growth_adjusted_runway' and 'net_burn'.

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 for simple constant-burn runway calculations, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. Given sibling names, the context hints at alternatives, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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