estimate_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior fully. It only mentions that the tool estimates or accepts a reported percentage, but does not disclose what it returns, whether it modifies state, or any edge cases. The sequencing hint is minimal.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and provides a clear workflow hint.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or how the result is used by format_status_footer beyond the ordering note.

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 parameter description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not explain any of the five parameters (turn_count, rules_chars, conversation_chars, mcp_overhead_chars, context_percent_reported) or their roles in the estimation logic.

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 uses specific verbs 'Estimate or accept' and clearly identifies the resource as context window usage %. It also references 'format_status_footer', which distinguishes this tool from siblings by its role in a workflow.

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 explicitly states when to call: 'before format_status_footer when IDE ring % is unknown.' This gives clear timing and condition. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, leaving some room for improvement.

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