power_shards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the calculation logic (plan_machines * plan_clock cost) and output elements (held, committed, free, coverage), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, return format, or error behavior, leaving gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and consists of two short sentences. The second sentence is dense and somewhat cryptic, but still efficient without waste.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description only partially completes the picture. It explains the main outputs and plan cost calculation but omits context for save/world parameters and fails to differentiate from power_report, leaving the tool underspecified.

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 only 20%, but the description adds meaning to plan_machines and plan_clock by explaining their relationship and how they affect the result. It does not elaborate on save, limit, or world, so those remain under-explained.

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 what the tool does: reports power shards held, committed, free, and the cost of an overclock plan. It distinguishes from siblings like power_report by focusing specifically on shards and overclock cost, though it lacks a strong imperative verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools like power_report, so the agent is left to infer usage from the purpose.

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