calculate_bus_factor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds conceptual context by defining bus factor, which is helpful, but it does not disclose behavior such as output format, edge cases, or what data is accessed. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key concept. Every sentence provides needed context. No 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?

The tool has a single parameter and clear read-only annotations, so complexity is low. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a number, a report, a list). For a calculation tool, it would be helpful to state the output type. Thus it is complete enough for a simple tool but not fully self-sufficient.

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 teamId fully documented in the schema. The description only refers to 'a specific team' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus the baseline 3 applies; the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Calculate the bus factor for a specific team.' It clearly defines what the tool does and provides a concrete metric (minimum number of team members). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_repository_ownership or identify_hidden_dependencies.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when evaluating team resilience, planning for personnel changes, or preparing for knowledge transfer.' This gives clear usage context, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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