Run Cost Leak Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context about the 7 inefficiency types and output format options, but the behavioral safety is already well covered by annotations. The description does not contradict annotations.

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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the main purpose, then lists inefficiencies, output description, and usage caveats. Every sentence adds value with no repetition.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return value (scored report with fix recommendations and estimated savings). It also explains the output format options and the scope of the audit. The description is complete for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of output_format for CI/CD pipelines and clarifying that agent_id is for scanning a specific agent. This goes beyond the 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 clearly states it runs a comprehensive cost leak audit across the agent fleet, identifies 7 specific inefficiencies, and returns a scored report with recommendations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like configure_alert_threshold and apply_optimization by explicitly stating what it does and does not do.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Do NOT use as a continuous monitoring loop — use configure_alert_threshold' and 'Do NOT use for fixing leaks — use apply_optimization'. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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