sc_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool provides time and resource estimates, but does not mention whether it is read-only, what inputs are required, what outputs are produced, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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 extremely concise with two short phrases, but it borders on under-specification. It is not wordy, yet it provides only minimal information about the tool's purpose, making it less useful than a well-structured one-sentence description.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested evidence object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is seriously incomplete. It fails to explain what inputs are needed, what outputs to expect, or how to effectively invoke the tool, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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 description itself adds no parameter details, but the input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including the nested evidence object. Since the schema carries the parameter semantics, the description's lack of param info is acceptable, though it does not enhance 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 identifies the tool as being for 'Project estimation' focused on 'Time and resource estimates', which distinguishes it from siblings like sc_build or sc_test. However, it lacks a specific verb and could be more explicit about what the tool does (e.g., 'Estimate project time and resources').

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. The description is purely a label and offers no context for selecting it among the many sibling tools, nor does it exclude any cases.

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