blacksmith_cost_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool produces a report and names all included components, which transparently sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention any potential dependencies or limitations, though the nature of a report makes these omissions less critical.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One-shot cost report') and enumerates key contents efficiently. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description competently explains what the report contains (totals, headroom, sticky-disk, top repos/runner types). It is sufficiently complete for an overview tool, though it could have clarified whether any additional configuration or prerequisites exist.

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% with both org and month fully described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond connecting the month to the report scope, 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 the tool as a one-shot cost report for a month, listing specific contents (totals, free-tier headroom, sticky-disk, top repos/runner types). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual breakdowns, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'one-shot cost report' implies use for a consolidated monthly overview, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus more specific siblings like cost_by_repo or cost_daily. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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