grok_budget

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. It mentions actions like 'adjust' and 'modify limits,' which imply mutation capabilities, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that can modify budget settings.

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 and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently covering the tool's purpose and key actions without unnecessary details. Every part earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity of budget management (with mutation actions) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, and response format, which are crucial for proper tool invocation in this context.

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 ('action' with enum values and 'value' as a number). The description adds marginal value by hinting at usage ('check spending, remaining balance, or modify limits'), but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies.

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 with specific verbs ('view or adjust') and resource ('Grok API budget'), and distinguishes its scope by mentioning spending, balance, and limits. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'grok' tool, which might handle other aspects of Grok API management.

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 context by listing actions like checking spending or modifying limits, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the sibling 'grok' tool) or any prerequisites. The implied context is adequate but lacks detailed exclusions or comparisons.

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