stl_bundle_size_report

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds output details (bytes per table, index cost isolated) but does not disclose potential errors or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose statement, context, then a parameter description. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the second paragraph could be tightened.

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?

While the purpose and one parameter are described, the missing `snapshot` parameter and lack of output format details leave gaps. The description is not complete enough for a user to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional 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?

Schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains only `compact_path` (a database built by `stl bundle compact`), but leaves `snapshot` entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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: reporting on-device size budget (bytes per table, with index cost isolated) to decide pruning strategy. It distinguishes from sibling bundle tools (e.g., fares, holidays) by focusing on size metrics.

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 context about when to use it (when deciding pruning strategy for the LP3 device) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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