prumo_budget

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this with 'Nothing is written' and 'It measures and counts', adding clarity about its observational nature and that it produces no findings.

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 run-on sentence but remains readable. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, yet the inclusion of multiple clauses (growth, paragraphs, ordering) makes it slightly dense. Still, it avoids unnecessary fluff and is relatively concise.

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 description fully specifies what is measured (bytes, lines, words, tokens, growth, paragraphs), the ordering ('largest first'), and the default time window ('thirty days ago'). It also clarifies that it is not a finding tool, making its role complete for a reporting utility.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (repo, since, targets) at 100% coverage, including defaults and auto-detection behavior. The main description adds minor detail like 'largest first' ordering but does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 reports context file costs (bytes, lines, words, token estimate) and provides growth metrics since a commit, with explicit ordering. It also distinguishes itself from a 'finding' tool, which helps differentiate it from siblings like prumo_check.

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 implies usage for session-based budget tracking ('at every session') and clarifies it is not for findings, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer this over prumo_check, prumo_fix, or prumo_drift.

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