skypilot_cost_report

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that terminated clusters are included and that costs are estimated based on resource types and duration, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, but it doesn't discuss output format, accuracy limitations, or any rate limits.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then scope details, then the optional filter. 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 is simple (one optional parameter), and the description covers what the report includes and the filter option. Since an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. It could mention cost units or estimation caveats, but is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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. It explains that the optional 'days' filter restricts the report to a number of days, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. No default or format details are given, but the core semantics are clarified.

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 and resource ('Get cost reports for all clusters'), and notably mentions including terminated clusters, which distinguishes it from cluster_status-type tools. It is clear without needing sibling names, though it shares 'list-like' semantics with other status tools.

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 implies usage for cost estimation and mentions the optional days filter, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like cluster_status or api_info, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied but not stated.

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