list_budgets

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List all budgets' implies a read operation but offers no detail on pagination, ordering, response shape, error behavior, or permissions, giving the agent minimal insight into what the call will actually do.

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, four-word sentence that directly states the operation and scope. There is no filler, and the content is immediately readable with the key information front-loaded.

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 parameterless list operation, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any detail about the output format, pagination, or whether 'all budgets' includes archived or inactive budgets. Given no output schema or annotations, a bit more context would be needed for full completeness.

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 description coverage is effectively complete. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; per the rubric, zero params receive a baseline score of 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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('budgets') with an explicit scope ('all'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_budget (single budget) and list_budget_limits (limits, not budgets).

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention get_budget for individual lookups or list_budget_limits for budget-specific sub-resources, leaving usage selection entirely to inference.

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