get_credit_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It correctly states that the tool returns specific credit information (included credits, purchased credits, total available, credits used). It does not explicitly mark it as read-only or mention auth/rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool, the described behavior is sufficient and non-misleading.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose immediately. The second sentence provides added detail on the return values. There is no wasted text; every word earns its place.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it is a simple read operation, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, providing sufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information. Schema coverage is 100% because no parameters exist. The description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'credit balance for your Commune account'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'credits_checkout' and 'list_credit_bundles' by focusing on balance retrieval. The second sentence lists the specific returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 when needing credit balance information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the clear separation of concerns among siblings, the implied guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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