encounter_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does say this is a calculation under the 2014 rules. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, that it does not modify encounter state, or what form the returned budget takes.

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 a single clean sentence with no filler, includes the relevant edition qualifier, and puts the action and inputs in the same clause. Every word contributes to the tool's core meaning.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It omits the allowed difficulty values, the input-level constraints, and what a usable budget response actually contains, making correct invocation harder than it needs be.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description is responsible for explaining the inputs. It references party_levels and difficulty only broadly; it does not list valid difficulty strings, how levels are interpreted, or how the default 'medium' relates to behavior.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: calculate an XP budget for a given difficulty from party levels, and it adds the scoping detail that it is the 2014-rules version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_encounter or cr_to_xp, which either evaluate an existing encounter or convert CR to XP.

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 phrasing implies use when the agent has the party levels and a difficulty and needs a budget XP, but it gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing. An agent must infer that start_encounter or evaluate_encounter is not the right tool here.

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