ynab_list_budgets

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses caching behavior, return structure (budgets[], cached, cache_info), and a specific error (UNAUTHORIZED). Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so the description complements these well without contradiction.

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 and well-structured, using clear headings for args, returns, examples, and errors. Every line adds value with no wasted words.

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, read-only), annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameter, return format, example usage, and error handling. No gaps are evident.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the single parameter response_format, including its enum values and default. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines the property without description.

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 lists all YNAB budgets for the authenticated user, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ynab_get_budget by specifying 'all budgets', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for listing all budgets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ynab_get_budget for a single budget. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, relying on the agent to infer context.

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