ynab_list_budgets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by mentioning the return structure (budgets[], cached, cache_info) and possible error ('UNAUTHORIZED'), which help the agent understand behavior beyond safety.

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 concise with a clear header, structured args, returns, examples, and errors. Every sentence is necessary and well-organized, making it easy to parse.

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 (one optional parameter) and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter, return structure, and error. It doesn't require additional details like pagination limits, and the presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to explain return values.

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 input schema provides 0% description coverage, but the description explains the single parameter 'response_format' with its possible values ('json' or 'markdown') and default, adding needed semantic context beyond the schema's enum and type.

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 'List all YNAB budgets for the authenticated user', specifying the verb (list) and resource (budgets). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ynab_get_budget by indicating it returns all budgets rather than a single one.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description gives an example and error info, it does not explain when to choose list_budgets over other budget-related tools such as ynab_get_budget or ynab_get_default_budget.

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