schedule_risk

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: it computes confidence intervals (p50/p80/p95) based on MAPE, returns risk level and recommendations, and uses an industry baseline when historical data is absent. This provides behavioral insight beyond structured 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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information (purpose, outputs, fallback behavior). No redundancy or wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (confidence intervals, risk level, recommendations). It mentions fallback behavior. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the output structure or when to use this over sibling tools like 'monte_carlo_schedule'. Overall, it equips the agent adequately.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description adds marginal value by explaining that the tool uses historical accuracy data and MAPE (related to team_id and task_type), but does not elaborate on how individual parameters affect the computation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Assess schedule risk for an estimate using historical accuracy data.' It specifies the resource (estimate) and action (assess risk). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'monte_carlo_schedule' or 'pert_estimate', which may also assess risk or uncertainty.

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 usage when you have an estimate and want confidence intervals based on historical data, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'monte_carlo_schedule', 'pert_estimate'). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or when not to use it.

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