pyp6xer_earned_value

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly listing the computed metrics and their formulas, giving the agent a clear picture of what outputs to expect. However, it does not disclose any potential constraints (e.g., how missing data affects calculations) or error conditions.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a well-organized list of metrics with formulas. Every sentence is informative, no fluff, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists (not shown but indicated by context), the description does not need to detail return values. The formulas provide sufficient context for what the tool computes. However, it lacks information about how the metrics are derived from the project data (e.g., reliance on budget fields) and does not mention any limitations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters (cache_key and proj_id) sufficiently. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints for the parameters, maintaining the baseline score.

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 calculates Earned Value Management (EVM) metrics and lists specific formulas (BCWS, BCWP, ACWP, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pyp6xer_progress_summary or pyp6xer_schedule_health_check, as EVM is a distinct subset of project control metrics.

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 (e.g., pyp6xer_progress_summary). It does not mention prerequisites, such as having loaded a file with pyp6xer_load_file, nor does it indicate that this tool is appropriate for detailed EVM analysis versus high-level progress.

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