ynab_get_month

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (month, cached, cache_info) and caching behavior. It does not disclose any additional side effects, but the existing annotations cover safety well.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose sentence, Args, Returns, Examples, Errors. It is concise with no redundant information, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter details, return fields, caching, error handling, and an example. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden, and the description still provides a summary of return fields.

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% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: budget_id (optional UUID, defaults to default), month (required, YYYY-MM-DD format with first day example), and response_format (optional, enum with default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and patterns.

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 gets full budget data for a specific month including all category balances. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like ynab_list_months or ynab_get_category by focusing on the monthly summary with all categories.

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 usage context like optional budget_id (default budget) and month format, and error handling (no default budget). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., ynab_get_budget vs this), and does not specify when not to use it.

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