list_budgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and the filter examples add context. However, it does not explicitly mention response format, pagination, or whether budget lines are included. This is a moderate gap, but the core behavior is clear.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential verb, resource, and filter options efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 low complexity of a list operation, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the actionable resource and filters. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return value shape (e.g., fields returned, whether empty results are possible). This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'project_id' and 'state' by saying 'optionally filtered by project and/or state' and gives examples for 'state'. However, it omits any mention of the 'limit' parameter, which remains unexplained. This partial compensation warrants a score of 3.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'project budgets', with optional filters by project and state. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_budget_lines' (which targets budget lines) and 'get_budget' (which retrieves a single budget), making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: to list project budgets with optional filters. It provides clear context for listing operations but does not explicitly exclude or compare with alternatives like 'get_budget' or 'search_budget_lines'. Since no such exclusions are stated, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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