list_budgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses month format requirements, default behavior, and return fields, which are essential behavioral facts. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, but 'list' strongly implies a safe read operation.

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 composed of five short sentences, each serving a purpose: main function, format, default, return fields, and related tool. It is front-loaded and not overly verbose, though the format example is redundant with the schema.

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?

Given the simple tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter format, default, return fields, and a related tool. It is complete for an agent to use correctly without further context.

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%, so the schema already documents the month parameter with the same format and default details. The description repeats this information without adding new parameter semantics, such as edge cases or validation rules.

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 lists budget allocations from Actual Budget, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by naming the resource, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 explains the optional month parameter and default behavior ('If month is not provided, returns budgets for all months'), giving clear context. It also directs to 'Use list_categories to get category names', but does not fully discuss when to use this tool vs. others.

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