simulate_cost

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the simulation approach, supported distribution families, and the P10/P50/P90 histogram output. It does not state whether the tool is pure read-only, whether it persists results, or mention assumptions such as item independence or limitations around normal/uniform distributions.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose and method front-loaded. The second sentence adds concrete output details that matter for tool selection. Every piece of information 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?

For a simulation tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining return values (P10/P50/P90, histogram) and the statistical method. The parameter schema covers all inputs, so invocation details are present. It only lacks deeper caveats like correlation assumptions or explicit non-persistence, and has no alternative-route guidance.

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 the description does not need to re-document parameters. The description adds a little context by linking PERT/triangular distributions to the estimation approach, but it does not explain parameters like items, iterations, or unit beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action and resource: Monte Carlo simulation for cost/timeline estimation under uncertainty. It also names the method and the outputs, making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like estimate_project or estimate_infrastructure, relying on the 'simulation' angle alone.

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 phrase 'under uncertainty' implies when this tool is appropriate, and the method description suggests it is for probabilistic instead of deterministic estimates. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool would be a better fit for simpler point estimates.

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