sdlc_generate_estimation

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by outlining the output structure (traditionalEstimate, aiAssistedEstimate, savings, assumptions), listing the SDLC phases covered, and noting the dependency on upstream artifacts. It does not contradict the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint). The behavior is well-communicated, though it could mention error states or whether the tool stores anything.

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 well-structured with a summary line, detailed behavior, prerequisites, args, and returns. It is somewhat verbose with the full phase enumeration, but this is useful given the output complexity. Each section is clear and earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the 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?

The description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and what prerequisites are required. Given the simple input and the output schema availability, the description sufficiently covers the tool's context. It could mention failure scenarios when prerequisites are missing, but overall it provides enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 only parameter, project_id, is already well-documented in the schema with a description of its type and the prerequisite artifacts. The tool description's Args section only says 'The project UUID,' adding no new meaning. Since schema coverage is effectively high for this parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Generate Traditional vs AI-Assisted cost estimates for a project.' It specifies the action (generate), the resource (cost estimates), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list projects or get artifacts. The detailed explanation of side-by-side estimates per SDLC phase further reinforces its unique role.

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 a clear usage prerequisite: 'Requires all upstream artifacts to be generated first (PRD, architecture, data model, API contract, screens, implementation plan).' This effectively tells the agent when to use the tool (after those artifacts exist). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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