estimate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safe, non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds value by stating the outputs (故事点、时间范围、风险点), giving agents insight into what they can expect. No contradictions with 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 two sentences long: the first states the usage trigger, and the second summarizes outputs. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the most critical information (when to use).

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?

For a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and output types. It could be improved by mentioning that all parameters are optional or by providing a hint about the output structure (e.g., how risk points are represented), but it is largely complete for an estimation tool.

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%, meaning structured descriptions already exist for all four parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'experience_level' affects estimation or the relationship between 'team_size' and output ranges. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: estimating development workload and task time. It specifies outputs (story points, time ranges, risk points) and the action verb '估算' (estimate) plus resource '开发工作量' (development workload). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'plan_heartbeat' or 'init_project', which are not estimation-focused.

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 starts with '当用户需要估算开发工作量、评估任务时间时使用' (use when user needs to estimate development workload or assess task time), providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for alternative selection.

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