Budget Get Budget Settings

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

Annotations provide strong safety guarantees (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description does not add behavioral context such as rate limits, authorization needs, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise (three words), but it lacks structure. While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place by providing enough information; it essentially restates the tool name. A single sentence without details is not optimally structured for agent use.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what settings are returned, how to interpret results, or how to use parameters like 'output_mode' and 'fields'. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 description coverage is 67% (two out of three parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not enhance parameter understanding; it does not explain what 'budget settings' encompasses or how parameters like 'session_path' affect behavior. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 'Get budget settings' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'budget_get_budget' (which gets a specific budget) and 'budget_get_budget_category' by focusing on the overarching settings. The input schema further supports this with parameters for field selection and output mode.

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, nor does it mention preconditions or exclusions. There is no context about when this tool is appropriate or when to prefer related tools like 'budget_get_budget_settings' over others.

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