budget_get_log

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It states the tool is read-only and never modifies state. It also documents the return format for both success and error cases: '{ok:true, log:[...], count}' and '{ok:false, error:"..."}'. Missing details like rate limits or auth requirements, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 five sentences, each adding value. No redundant statements. While it is efficiently written, a more structured layout (e.g., separating return format from usage) could improve readability, but it remains clean and to the point.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return format (including the log structure and error case) and provides a use case. The schema fully covers parameters, and the description fills in the remaining context needed for invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds minor value by restating the limit default and usage hint, but it does not provide deeper meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a chronological list of token spend transactions. It explicitly says it is read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like budget_spend or budget_reset. It also names budget_status as an alternative for summary view, further clarifying its specific role.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Useful for auditing which agents consumed the most tokens in a task cycle.' It also tells when not to use it: 'prefer budget_status for a summary view.' Additionally, it advises on the limit parameter usage with a default value.

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