get_earned_value

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is read-only. It focuses solely on the calculation without addressing behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the metrics, front-loading the purpose with no extraneous information. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more structure.

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 no output schema, no parameter explanations, and moderate complexity (EVM metrics with three parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, metric interpretation, and parameter usage, making it insufficient for informed tool invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (file_path, project_id, project_short_name). The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for complex inputs.

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 it calculates EVM metrics per project and lists specific metrics (PV, EV, AC, etc.), providing a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like analyze_resource_utilization, though the metric list implies a distinct function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no context on when not to use it. It simply states what it does without any usage directives.

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