predict_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the ordering of results ('best first') and says nothing about whether the tool reads the working tree, requires a git checkout, is read-only, or whether repo_path defaults to the current directory. That leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified for a prediction tool with three undocumented parameters. Brevity here is achieved by omission rather than by efficient packing of necessary detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should clarify the semantics of k, repo_path, and the environment requirements; it does not, leaving the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only obliquely hints that 'issue' is the issue text and 'checkout' relates to repo_path. It never explains what 'k' means (presumably the number of files returned) or its default of 5, nor what repo_path does when null.

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 sentence names the resource (files in the checkout) and the ranking behavior ('best first') for a given issue text, so an agent can tell it produces a ranked file prediction. It is not verb-led and does not differentiate from the sole sibling check_readiness, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than check_readiness, no prerequisites (e.g., must be run inside a checkout), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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