blacksmith_cost_daily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, output format, sort order, timezone, or whether the operation is read-only. 'Breakdown' implies a read operation, but this is not stated, and no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, fluff-free, and front-loaded with the key information ('Per-day breakdown'). 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 low complexity (2 optional params), no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a clear high-level picture of the result ('jobs, minutes, and cost' per day) and the time scope. However, it lacks detail on the return structure and any behavioral caveats, leaving some gaps for a fully complete description.

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 100%, with both 'org' and 'month' already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a per-day breakdown of jobs, minutes, and cost for a month, providing a specific scope of data. It is clear and distinguishes the tool's daily granularity from some siblings (e.g., cost_by_repo), though it does not explicitly contrast with all sibling 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 phrase 'Per-day breakdown ... for a month' implies this tool is for monthly, day-level cost analysis, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like cost_summary or cost_trend. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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