List Budgets (legacy)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the deprecation note. It does not mention what happens when called, return format, or any side effects. The description's only behavioral implication is that the tool is legacy, but it does not elaborate on how it behaves. Given annotations exist, the description adds minimal value here.

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?

A single, short sentence conveys the essential information (the legacy name and its replacement). It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words, making it highly concise and structured.

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 legacy alias, the description provides the critical information—the canonical tool to use instead—making it functionally complete for deprecation purposes. However, it omits any description of what the tool actually does, which could be necessary if the agent still needs to invoke it directly. Given its redirect nature, this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.

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 it is the 'Former name of ynab_list_plans,' which clearly identifies it as a legacy alias and implies its function mirrors that of the replacement. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'lists budgets'), leaving the agent to infer behavior from the sibling tool's name. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the canonical tool but lacks a direct statement of purpose.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (ynab_list_plans) and indicates this is the former name, effectively telling the agent to use the replacement instead. This is clear, actionable guidance on when to use this tool versus its successor, with no ambiguity.

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