lm_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by confirming the model is not actually loaded, i.e. a side-effect-free dry run. It says nothing about estimate accuracy or how the many options affect the result.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool exposing a large nested options object.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage on a tool whose 'options' object contains a dozen undocumented tuning fields, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly beyond passing a model name. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the parameter guidance gap is significant.

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%: neither 'model' nor the deeply nested 'options' object (gpu, ttl, context_length, speculative_draft_*) is documented anywhere. The description mentions no parameter at all and does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the substantial options surface opaque.

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 ('Estimate model memory needs') and adds the key qualifier 'without loading it,' which cleanly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like lm_load and lm_load_advanced. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is only implied: you gather that this is a pre-load check, and 'using installed CLI estimate-only support' hints at a prerequisite. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lm_load/lm_load_advanced or what to do if the estimate-only support is missing.

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