estimate

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

The description discloses the tool's outputs (story points, time ranges, risk points) but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but remains somewhat vague.

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 and to the point, consisting of a single sentence that covers purpose and outputs. It could be slightly better structured for readability, but it is efficient.

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 that this tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters like team_size and experience_level affect the estimation, nor does it provide details on the output format or edge cases.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema.

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's purpose: estimating development effort and outputting story points, time ranges, and risk points. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_feature' or 'code_review', which might also involve effort estimation in some contexts.

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 a clear usage scenario ('当用户需要估算开发工作量、评估任务时间时使用') but lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives to consider. It is implied but not explicit.

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