estimate_effort

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says it estimates story points and time. It doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific inputs, or what happens with incomplete requirements. No indication of output format (e.g., numeric estimates) despite no output schema. This is a significant gap for an estimation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by including usage context.

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 (estimation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the estimate returns (e.g., numerical values, confidence), nor does it provide usage guidelines. For a tool that likely produces important estimates, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., how complexity influences estimates or expected format of requirement). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (estimates) and resource (story points and development time for a requirement), which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like plan_feature, and the phrasing is a bit terse. It conveys the core purpose but lacks precision about what exactly is estimated (story points and time) and how it fits in the workflow.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_feature or design_architecture is provided. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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