cost_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the tool outputs a cost summary and how to group, but it does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it performs heavy computation, how it handles incomplete graphs, or what the output structure is. For a tool that likely reads data, this leaves safety and side-effect information missing.

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 concise and to the point: two lines of purpose and a short list of arguments. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the 'by' values. No filler or redundancy. It could be slightly structured better (e.g., markdown formatting) but is efficient.

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 nested object parameter 'graph' with zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the output looks like, whether it's a single number or a breakdown, nor does it mention versioning requirements beyond 'graph JSON v0.4'. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool with a properly structured graph and interpret results reliably.

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%, meaning the description is the only place to explain parameters. It explains 'by' (agrupar por 'layer' | 'type' | 'owner') but does not explain 'graph' beyond 'graph JSON v0.4'. The 'by' explanation adds value beyond the schema, but the 'graph' parameter is left vague: no indication of required structure beyond the version tag, and the schema marks it as a generic object with additionalProperties.

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 verb and resource: 'Resumen de costo del grafo' (cost summary of the graph). It identifies the tool as computing a summary of costs from a graph, and lists valid grouping values for the 'by' parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings beyond the obvious 'graph' input, though the purpose is clear enough.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a cost summary of a graph, grouping by the specified dimensions. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools like blast_radius or remediation_plan, which are functionality-distinct. The absence of explicit alternatives slightly reduces the score, but the usage context is clear.

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