company_treasury

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Moves no money', indicating a non-mutating side effect, and mentions 'JSON' for output format. This provides useful behavioral transparency, though it omits other potential behaviors like auth or rate limits.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the tool's function, inputs, output format, and non-mutating nature. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite the tool having 8 parameters and an output schema, the description provides minimal detail about how to construct inputs or interpret the output. It does not explain parameter formats, expected JSON structures, or the forecast's contents, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description references several input concepts (sealed cash position, scheduled flows, payroll, fixed costs, operating budget) that map to some schema parameters, giving partial context. However, it does not explain each parameter individually, leaving some (e.g., now, floor, horizon_weeks) unaddressed and unclear.

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 produces a weekly cash forecast from specified inputs like sealed cash position, scheduled flows, payroll, fixed costs, and operating budget. It also specifies output format (JSON) and that it does not move money, making the purpose distinct from payment-related sibling tools.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other company_* sibling tools. It implies usage for forecasting but lacks direct comparisons, conditions, or exclusions to help an agent choose among alternative cash-related tools.

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