forecast_max_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by describing what it calculates ('maximum sustainable traffic rate', 'headroom per subsystem', 'limiting factor'), but doesn't mention output format, computational requirements, or potential side effects. It adequately describes the core behavior without rich contextual details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable detail about outputs. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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's moderate complexity (forecasting based on utilization), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what it calculates and what insights it provides. It could be more complete by mentioning output format or data sources, but for a tool with 100% schema coverage and clear purpose, it's largely sufficient.

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% with only one parameter ('sensor' hostname), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds context by explaining this is for traffic rate forecasting based on resource utilization, giving meaning to why the sensor parameter matters. With zero parameters requiring compensation, baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('extrapolate', 'shows', 'identifies') and resources ('maximum sustainable traffic rate', 'sensor', 'subsystems'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on traffic rate forecasting rather than querying, monitoring, or testing tools.

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 usage when needing to understand sensor capacity limits ('headroom per subsystem'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sensor_status' or 'sensor_trend'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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