emergent_credit_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the result is human-readable and short, which implies a safe read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or system implications.

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 filler, fluff, or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves ambiguity with the sibling emergent_get_credits and provides no output schema to clarify the return structure. The 'human-readable' qualifier helps, but an agent would benefit from a brief distinction from the credits 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 there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 names a specific action ('get') and a specific resource ('credit balance summary'), and adds useful qualifiers ('short human-readable'). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling emergent_get_credits.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus emergent_get_credits or any other sibling. An agent cannot tell whether it should choose this tool or emergent_get_credits for a credit-related query.

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