Subscription value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the key algorithmic behavior (edits folded in time order, only surviving lines count) and describes what each view reports (e.g., waste includes rework, failures, rejections, context bloat). It does not mention output format or side effects, but for a read-only analysis tool this is acceptable.

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?

Concise and well-structured: leads with the core concept, uses bold for emphasis, and lists views compactly. No redundant sentences; every phrase adds information about behavior, scope, or view options.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the purpose, key behavior, all views, and the scope constraint. It lacks explicit return format or edge cases, but the views imply what is returned. Given the sibling set, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining each view's meaning (summary = surviving lines and cost; waste = rework, failures, rejections, context bloat in dollars; etc.) and reiterating the scope/project_path constraint. This enriches the schema descriptions significantly.

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?

States a specific purpose: measures surviving Claude Code usage (edits that persist to session end) and cost. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools about limits and sharing. The description defines the core metric ('survived to the end of the session') and lists the view modes.

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?

Explains internal usage conditions: each view's purpose and the scope=project requirement (project_path). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (limit_breakdown, chat_share, current_limits) or state when this tool is preferred over them. The context implies it's for value/waste assessment, but no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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