llm_gain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (dashboard display) but does not explicitly state lack of side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. The feature list adds context but lacks explicit safety or mutability statements, resulting in a 3.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a brief elaboration, and bullet points for features. It covers arguments and return values efficiently. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'features' list slightly overlaps the initial description) prevents a 5, but it is concise overall.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only dashboard), the description is largely complete. It explains the period parameter and indicates a formatted savings dashboard return. An output schema exists (not shown), but the description adds value. It lacks mention of data limits or pagination, which is minor for a dashboard 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'period'. The description compensates fully by listing allowed values (today, week, month, all) and the default (week), adding significant meaning that the schema does not provide. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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 shows a token savings dashboard with specific metrics (costs vs Opus baseline, efficiency multiplier). It uses specific verbs like 'Show' and 'Displays', and details the resource (token savings dashboard) with features. While sibling tools like llm_savings exist, the description's focus on dashboard presentation distinguishes it, earning a 5.

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 like llm_savings, llm_budget, or llm_dashboard. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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