Check Capy spend

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint): it explains the output structure (split by LLM/VM, user/thread), mentions the org_id limitation, and states default values for parameters. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a necessary instruction about org_id. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy, and the key 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?

The tool has 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema. The description explains the purpose well, mentions default behaviors, and covers the most important parameter (org_id). It lacks explicit output structure details but describes the breakdown sufficiently for a reporting tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical pragmatic information: default values for to ('now'), from ('7 days ago'), page (1), page_size (20), and routed ('paid'), plus context for org_id. This aids correct invocation beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 ('Report') and resource ('what your Capy agents have cost'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like capy_status or capy_projects. It explicitly states the tool's function of reporting cost breakdowns by user and thread.

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?

It provides a concrete use case ('answer what did that fleet cost me') and explains where to obtain the required org_id (from the Capy web dashboard). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context from sibling tools makes it clear this is the only cost-related tool.

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