martin_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating the tool works 'without spending anything,' implying it is a non-destructive dry run. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the cost-free nature, which is crucial for an estimation tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Estimate the cost, recommended route, and Pre Work Burn'), and includes a clear usage directive. There is zero fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, cost impact, and relationship to martin_run. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to describe return values. It could mention the 'Pre Work Burn' concept more explicitly, but the core estimation context is complete for a pre-run tool.

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 100%, so all 5 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the generic 'objective' mention. Per the baseline, when schema coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra meaning but doesn't need to.

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's purpose: to estimate cost, recommended route, and Pre Work Burn for an objective. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('objective'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'martin_run' by explicitly positioning it as a pre-run step. This is a strong, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use before martin_run to understand what a task will cost.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before running) and why (to preview cost). It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the reference to martin_run provides clear context and differentiation.

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