estimated_typing_duration

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It implies a pure calculation with no side effects, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or non-destructive. Lacks details on precision or constraints.

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: first states purpose, second provides use case. No redundancy, front-loaded, every word 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?

Given simple parameters and presence of output schema, the description covers essential information. Could mention edge cases or assume positive integers, but adequate for typical use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description adds value by explaining char_count as number of characters and wpm as words per minute, with default shown. Could add constraints like positive integers, but sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states it returns expected seconds given char_count and wpm. The verb 'return' and resource 'expected seconds' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like human_type that perform actual typing.

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 line 'Useful for scheduling follow-up actions without guessing' provides context but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No differentiation from sibling tools.

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