get_cloud_diagram_cost_snapshot

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is in describing the outputs (total spend, trend, top resources, cost trend). It does not contradict annotations. It could mention the default interval behavior, but overall it adds useful behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and outputs, then giving requirements and exclusions. Every sentence is essential, no waste. Highly efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the return contents (total spend, trend, top resources). It covers purpose, usage, and exclusions. Minor missing details like interval default do not significantly hinder invocation. Overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the required parameters and date format but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The interval parameter's default is not mentioned, but the schema covers its enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a cost snapshot for a specific diagram layer over a time period, listing outputs like total spend, trend percentage, top resources/services, and cost trend. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scope (layer-specific) and explicitly excluding account-wide or budget analysis.

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 explicitly says when to use (for a specific layer cost snapshot) and when not to use (for account-wide cost analysis or budgets), providing alternative tools run_query and list_budgets. This gives clear guidance for selection.

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