sx_query_working_hour_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'queries' but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The operation reference (operation.workingHourBudget) adds no behavioral transparency beyond the name.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. There is no useful structure or front-loading of operational details; it amounts to a restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the purpose beyond a noun phrase, lacks parameter documentation, and provides no clues about return values or error behavior. For an agent to correctly invoke this tool, it would need external knowledge or schema inspection.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The description simply repeats the tool name and operation reference, providing no meaning for form_id, project_id, or defaulted now_bill_id. An agent cannot infer what values to pass or their semantics from this text.

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 states 'Query working hour budget' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling tools sx_query_cost_budget and sx_query_material_budget by focusing on the working hour budget specifically. However, it does not elaborate on what a working hour budget is or what the query returns beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sx_query_cost_budget or sx_query_material_budget. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when another tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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