get_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the exact returned fields and the currency (USD), which confirms this is a read of financial state. However, it says nothing about behavior for an unknown/missing project, whether caps are configured or null, or any auth requirement.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and immediately followed by the concrete payload. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return fields, which is the most important missing piece. It still leaves the only parameter undocumented and gives no failure-mode context, so the definition is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single `project` parameter has no type-level description, yet the description never mentions it. The agent cannot tell whether `project` is a name, ID, or path, nor what the "default" value resolves to.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get ... budget") with an explicit enumeration of the four values returned: spend, per-run cap, project cap, remaining USD. It is unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps with budget retrieval, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The listed return values (per-run cap, remaining budget) strongly imply the gating use case — checking affordability before run_verb or run_recipe — but the agent must infer that.

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