estimate_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the calculation formula (nodes x hours) and attributes it to guidance, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or what data the job object must contain. Partial transparency 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 that front-loads the essential formula and references guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 cost estimator, the description provides the core calculation and a reference, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, it is incomplete because it does not explain what the 'job' object must contain (e.g., fields for nodes and hours), and no behavioral or usage details are provided.

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 schema has one 'job' object with no property descriptions (0% schema description coverage). The description adds meaning by indicating nodes and hours are key cost factors, but it does not explicitly map these to fields inside the 'job' object or state whether they are required.

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 estimates SU cost based on nodes and hours, giving a specific formula. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that build, validate, or submit jobs. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'estimates' and reads more as a noun phrase.

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 provides context by referencing the DesignSafe job-resources guidance, implying it should be used for cost estimation according to that guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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