Predict due dates

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

Description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false) and adds rich behavioral context: algorithm (throughput, priority queue), that it 'suggests' and 'flags', and that it is read-only. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: algorithm, outputs, and read-only note with next step. No unnecessary words.

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?

Tool is moderately complex (algorithm, multiple outputs) and no output schema. The description covers what outputs to expect (projected dates, suggestions, flags). Could mention edge cases or errors, but sufficient for a prediction tool.

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 low (33%) with only 'asOf' having a description. The tool description does not explain the 'project' or 'type' parameters in detail. It mentions walking a priority queue but does not link this to parameters, leaving the agent to infer.

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 precisely states it estimates completion dates using backlog and throughput, walks priority-ordered queue, suggests due dates, and flags slips. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools as no other sibling does due-date prediction.

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 for planning by noting 'Read-only — apply a suggestion with update_task if you want it stuck.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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