three_statement_modeling__project_year

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists inputs but does not describe whether the tool is read-only, mutates any data, or has side effects. The term 'projection' suggests it is a calculation, but details on constraints or expected behavior are lacking.

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 very concise, using a single line and a list. It is front-loaded with the tool category in brackets. However, it lacks a separate description of the output or clear sentence structure, which could be improved without adding much length.

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 financial projection and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to chain multiple years, or what 'linked' means. Sibling tools exist for verification, but this core projection tool needs more context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by listing specific sub-fields for both parameters (e.g., 'prior: revenue, cash, ppe, debt, equity, retained_earnings'). However, it does not explain the types, units, or required sub-structure, leaving ambiguity about the exact format expected.

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 is a 'minimal linked projection' for three-statement modeling, listing inputs for prior period and assumptions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'balance_check' or 'cash_ties' by focusing on projecting a year of financial statements, though it could more explicitly state the output.

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 that this tool is used to project a single year of financial statements, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., multi-year projections or other three-statement tools). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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