estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is known to be non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds that it outputs story points, time ranges, and risk points, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits like accuracy dependencies or rate limits.

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 two concise sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with the use case and followed by the output. Every sentence adds value, with no superfluous information.

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 an output schema, the description appropriately explains the return values (story points, time range, risk points). However, it does not detail how parameters like team_size or experience_level affect the output, leaving some context incomplete for a thorough understanding.

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 the schema already documents parameters adequately. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, only stating the output. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 is for estimating development workload and evaluating task time, specifying outputs like story points, time ranges, and risk points. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle different tasks like code review or bug fixes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when users need to estimate development workload'), but does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or mention alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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