prumo_budget

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description corroborates with 'Nothing is written.' It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default comparison point (the commit thirty days ago), auto-detection of CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md/SKILL.md, and the per-session vs. on-demand reading distinction. The garbled syntax undercuts the value, but the content is there.

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 core is one sprawling run-on sentence whose middle clauses ('when each is read, at every session with the files a CLAUDE.md imports, or only when used...') are close to unparseable, followed by two short tag sentences. The verb is front-loaded, but the structure fails to make the content scannable.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description does convey what is measured (bytes, lines, words, token estimate at 4 chars, growth since a commit, duplicated long paragraphs) and the default behaviors. It is substantively complete even though the prose is hard to follow.

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 100%, so the schema already documents repo, since, and targets, including their defaults and auto-detect list. The description restates the same default ('the one thirty days ago') and auto-detection behavior without adding syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource: 'Reports what the context files cost the agent: bytes, lines, words and an estimate of tokens.' It also distinguishes itself from diagnostic siblings by asserting 'nothing here is a finding,' implying contrast with prumo_check, though it never names any sibling outright.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative among prumo_check, prumo_fix, prumo_coverage, or prumo_drift. The only oblique guidance is 'It measures and counts; nothing here is a finding,' which hints the tool is for measurement rather than issue detection but leaves the routing entirely to inference.

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