blacksmith_sticky_disk_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only communicates the output type (cost and GB-hours) without any behavioral traits such as read-only status, permissions, rate limits, or data granularity. This is adequate for a simple query tool but misses an explicit safety disclosure.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the key purpose in the first. The second sentence adds useful cost context without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

For a simple tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the return value (cost and GB-hours) and time scope. However, it lacks differentiation from sticky_disk_daily and does not explain the output format or any aggregation details, leaving some completeness gaps given the absence of annotations.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (org and month), including defaults and month format. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the month scope, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 sticky-disk storage cost and GB-hours for a month, with a specific scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sticky_disk_daily by emphasizing the monthly breakdown and identifies the resource (Docker cache).

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints at importance ('Often the largest line item') but does not mention sibling tools or exclude cases like daily analysis, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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