statement_preparation__investing_cash_flow

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

With no annotations and no behavioral details, the agent cannot infer whether this tool is read-only, mutates data, or computes a value. The description is silent on side effects and 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?

The description is only a label; it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is no substantive content.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no description of return values or behavior, the tool definition is completely inadequate for reliable agent 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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters (capex, acquisitions, disposal_proceeds), leaving the agent to infer from 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 merely echoes the tool name ('[statement-preparation] investing_cash_flow') without specifying what the tool does. It lacks a verb or resource definition, making it a tautology.

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 siblings like financing_cash_flow or operating_cash_flow_indirect. The description offers no context for selection.

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