Get Cognitive Load

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

The description implies a read-only calculation, but the annotation readOnlyHint=false suggests the tool may have side effects, which is a contradiction. No additional behavioral details such as potential state changes, output format, or required conditions are disclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object without any wasted words. It is efficiently structured for agents to parse quickly.

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?

The description lacks essential context: it does not explain what 'active task graph' means, what ICL/ECL represent in terms of output, or the return structure (no output schema exists). Combined with the annotation contradiction and missing usage guidance, the overall picture is incomplete.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single optional 'project' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Calculate' and resource 'Intrinsic (ICL) and Extraneous (ECL) cognitive load metrics' within the scope of 'the active task graph'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_summary or critical_path.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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