calculate

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral nuance about the marked-for-calculation state and override logic, which is valuable. It does not elaborate on side effects like overwriting results, but given annotation coverage this is adequate.

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 a two-sentence structure. The key action phrase is front-loaded, and the behavior is explained without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential selection behavior. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., open project, defined phases), but those are domain-implied. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully explains the only parameter 'phases' despite 0% schema coverage. It specifies both omit behavior (all marked-for-calculation phases) and provide behavior (exact list regardless of marked state). This exceeds the schema's minimal 'Phases' label.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('phases'), clearly stating the tool's core function. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on phase calculation, though it does not explicitly reference alternative tools. The additional omit/provide detail clarifies scope.

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 explains how to control which phases are calculated (omit vs provide), which is practical usage guidance. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or any prerequisites. The guidance is useful but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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