pm.monte_carlo_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: float64 math, output rounded to 10 significant digits, and the reproducibility guarantee when seed defaults to 0 – all behavioral facts not present in any structured field.

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?

Four dense sentences with the outcome, input contract, numeric behavior, and modeling limitation each stated once and front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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?

For a simulation tool with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it remains complete enough on inputs, determinism, and the scope limitation that an agent can call it correctly. The only missing piece is an explicit pointer to the sibling to use when dependencies matter.

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% (bare titles, undocumented nested task object), so the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines the task element shape {id, optimistic, most_likely, pessimistic} as Decimal strings, the n bounds (100–1,000,000, default 1000), and seed semantics (0 ⇒ reproducible). This is exactly the compensation the empty schema requires.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('몬테카를로로 시뮬레이션') and enumerates the exact outputs (P10/P50/P90/mean/std-dev), so an agent knows precisely what it computes. The caveat that parallel paths and precedence are not modeled implicitly separates it from pm.critical_path, though no sibling is named outright.

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 limitation ('병렬 경로나 선후 관계는 반영하지 않는다') hints at when this tool is inappropriate and points a careful reader toward pm.critical_path, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead when' statement against the very close siblings pm.pert and pm.critical_path. Usage is implied, not directed.

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