estimate_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool estimates cost and token usage, omitting potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it modifies any state. The lack of detail leaves significant unknowns for an AI agent.

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 a single 12-word sentence, which is highly concise but sacrifices necessary detail. Every word earns its place, but the brevity leaves out critical information, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly use the tool.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'plan', or the optional repoPath. An AI agent would lack sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its results.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (modelId, planPath, repoPath). The term 'plan' in the description hints at planPath, but the purpose of repoPath is unclear. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 estimates token usage and cost for a specific model given a plan. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like recommend_model or list_models which focus on other aspects. However, it could be more specific about what 'plan' refers to.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recommend_model or get_model_profile. There are no exclusions or context for appropriate use, leaving the agent to infer solely from the brief description.

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