analyze_resource_utilization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that labor resources (RT_Labor) are flagged as over_allocated when planned hours exceed max_hours_per_year (default 2080), and results are sorted by planned hours descending. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond structured fields, though it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or handles errors.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words. It efficiently covers core behavior but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main analysis but omits details: return format (what fields are in the summary?), error behavior, and file_path meaning. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without assumptions.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies max_hours_per_year's default value and derivation (40 hrs/week x 52 weeks), adding value. However, file_path is left completely unexplained, relying on the parameter name alone. Overall, partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 summarizes resource utilization with planned/actual hours and costs, and specifies how over-allocation is flagged. It uses a specific verb ('summarize') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_resources or get_resource_assignments.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing resource utilization but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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