blacksmith_cost_by_runner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output dimension and time scope, but does not disclose details such as whether this is read-only, how costs are aggregated, or what exactly is included/excluded. It provides basic functional transparency without richer behavioral context.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful example, making every word earn 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?

For a simple read-only report tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the main output and scope. It could mention default behavior or return format, but the essential information needed to select and invoke the tool is present.

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% and both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds an example runner type and 'for a month' context, but it does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool returns cost data broken down by runner type, with a concrete example and time scope ('for a month'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blacksmith_cost_by_repo and blacksmith_cost_summary by identifying the exact grouping dimension.

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 (monthly cost by runner type) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use. Sibling tool names suggest related cost breakdowns, but the description itself offers no comparative guidance.

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