what_was_not_examined

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the tool name: it explains that spend is classified into three states and that the unexamined list is ordered largest first. Since no annotations are provided, this added context helps set expectations, though it still does not explicitly mention read-only status or permissions.

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 intentionally brief, front-loading the core purpose in the first line and then providing the rationale and ordering detail in two supporting sentences. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description captures the tool's purpose and one key behavioral trait (ordering), but it omits any explanation of the optional parameters and does not offer comparative usage guidance with sibling tools. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but the missing parameter semantics and absence of when-to-use guidance leave the description only partially complete.

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 includes two optional parameters ('cur' and 'profile') with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention or explain either parameter. This leaves the agent without any hint of their meaning or effect, a substantial gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb 'show' and a clear resource 'spend no rule looks at', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like what_is_wasting_money or what_changed. It further explains the denominator concept, reinforcing the purpose and making the tool's intent unmistakable.

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 clear context by explaining that every dollar is either flagged, checked and clean, or never examined, clarifying the tool's role in identifying what wasn't reviewed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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