list_budgets

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

Annotations already cover key traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits or authentication needs, but doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with minimal added value.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety and behavior, and an output schema present), the description is reasonably complete for a list operation. However, it could benefit from mentioning the scope (e.g., all budgets vs. filtered) or output format hints to enhance context, but it's adequate overall.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately avoids redundancy, earning a baseline score for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('List') and resource ('budgets associated with the user's account'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_budget' or 'get_default_budget', which might retrieve specific budgets rather than listing all, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 'get_budget' for a single budget or 'get_default_budget' for a default one. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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