Estimate Fit

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose that the estimate is deterministic with no LLM involvement, which meaningfully signals reproducibility. It says nothing about side effects, network access, or whether the model is downloaded/read, leaving the read-only question unresolved.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary capability and zero filler. Nothing in it is wasted or repeated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, an agent lacks enough context about the tool's place in the workflow and its side-effect profile.

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 100%, so all three parameters (repo_id, profile_id, context_tokens) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about how context_tokens affects the estimate or the cost of changing it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('estimate memory fit and bandwidth-bound decode speed'), which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as analyze_model, run_recommendation, or run_benchmark, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus run_recommendation, analyze_model, or run_benchmark, and no prerequisites stated. The 'local' profile hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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