estimate_runtime

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

With no annotations, the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It mentions validating loops/nodes against constraints but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what constraints are considered, or what the output format is. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or requirements.

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 sentence of 8 words, front-loading the verb 'Estimate'. It is concise but may sacrifice necessary detail; however, it is not verbose and efficiently states the core action.

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's complexity (validating runtime safety) and the presence of many siblings, the description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify what 'runtime safety' means or how constraints are applied. The output schema exists but the description does not integrate with it. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand when and how to use this 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the two parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond stating 'algorithm' and 'problem' as inputs; it briefly mentions loops/nodes which hints at parameter expectations but not explicitly. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Estimate' and resource 'runtime safety', and mentions validating loops/nodes, which gives a clear but somewhat vague purpose. It can be distinguished from siblings like analyze_complexity, but could be more precise.

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 like analyze_complexity or dry_run. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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