effort_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context: the estimation includes critical-path hours and applies a 20% buffer, rooted in the planning fallacy. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or how base_hours interacts with the calculation, leaving some behaviors opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and two concrete details (critical-path and buffer) without extraneous words. Every phrase 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?

While the core purpose is clear, the description fails to describe the return format (no output schema) and leaves the base_hours parameter undocumented. With no annotations, these omissions make the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'plan' is used to estimate per-step and total effort, but it completely omits 'base_hours'—its purpose and relationship to the estimate are unexplained. This is a significant gap given zero schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Estimate' and clearly identifies the resource ('a plan') while specifying granular outputs: per-step effort, total effort, critical-path hours, and a 20% buffer. This distinguishes it from sibling planning tools like plan_quality or plan_rewrite, which focus on different aspects.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need effort estimates for a plan. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternative planning tools (e.g., plan_tracker, project_brief). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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