budget_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool cross-references Forecast and Harvest data with a last-30-day filter, but does not mention safety constraints (e.g., read-only), authentication needs, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds operational detail. No superfluous 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?

Given no parameters and an output schema (confirmed in context signals), the description adequately explains the main functionality. It could mention how this tool relates to similar siblings like get_remaining_budgeted_hours, but overall it is complete for a simple, no-input 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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the tool's output structure (budget burn-down per project), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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: 'Get budget burn-down: remaining budgeted hours (Forecast) vs logged hours (Harvest, last 30 days) per project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions cross-referencing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_remaining_budgeted_hours.

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 budget burn-down analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_remaining_budgeted_hours or list_time_entries. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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