Capacity estimate

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by calling the estimate 'deterministic' and listing its output components, but it says nothing about behavior when the project has no answers yet, whether the estimate is persisted, or any access 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the concrete outputs. Nothing is wasted and no re-reading is required.

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 simple read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work of specifying what the result contains. The main residual gap, given the absent output schema, is not explaining edge-case behavior when answers are incomplete.

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% and the description never mentions the single parameter, projectId, or what it identifies. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('capacity estimate') and enumerates exactly what the estimate contains (RPS, storage, instances, availability budget, consistency warnings). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like archforge_generate_design or archforge_status, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'for the answers collected so far' implies the prerequisite that answers must already be submitted (e.g., via archforge_submit_answers), which is useful implied usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over archforge_generate_design or archforge_status, nor any note about calling it before answers are complete.

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