check_credits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Cek' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect safety, authentication needs, or what the response contains. This is adequate for a zero-parameter query but leaves room for more transparency.

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 a single front-loaded Indonesian sentence that names the action and object with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only balance check, the description conveys the essential information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. It does not describe the response format, but the overall simplicity and clear purpose make the definition adequately complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is fully covered by the empty properties object. The description therefore adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cek') and clearly identifies the resource ('saldo kredit akun Bumi Digital'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which all concern models, generation, uploads, or status, none of which cover credit balance.

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 phrase 'saldo kredit ... saat ini' clearly frames the use case: querying the current credit balance. There are no explicit exclusion rules or named alternatives, but the sibling list contains no competing balance-check tool, so the context is sufficient.

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