emergent_get_credits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly by saying 'Get' and lists return fields, but it does not state whether this incurs cost, requires authentication, has rate limits, or whether the credit balance is real-time or cached.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and target, the second lists return fields. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description covers the core need. However, it lacks information about credential requirements, whether the balance reflects real-time usage, and relationship to the sibling emergent_credit_summary, which may be the more appropriate tool in some contexts.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description needs to compensate little. It goes beyond the schema by explicitly listing the returned data fields, which helps the agent understand the output shape despite no output schema being present.

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 a specific action ('Get the current credit balance') and resource ('the Emergent account'). It then enumerates the exact return fields (ECU balance, monthly credits, daily credits, plan name, refresh date), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a natural use case (checking credits before resource-intensive operations) but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings. Given sibling tools like emergent_credit_summary exist, the description does not differentiate when to choose this tool versus that one.

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