spend_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool shows information (totals, budgets, holds, payments) and notes that spending policy is operator-owned and cannot be widened by any tool. This adequately informs about its read-only nature and constraints.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence efficiently lists what the tool shows, and the second adds a key policy constraint. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description outlines the scope of returned information (totals, budgets, holds, payments) sufficiently for a simple status tool. Given the context of sibling tools and no parameters, the description is complete enough for the agent to understand its use.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist; baseline for 0 parameters 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 clearly states it shows today's agent spending, including totals, remaining budgets (overall and per host), active holds, and recent payments. It distinguishes itself from siblings like approve_pending and list_receipts by being a read-only overview tool.

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 viewing spending status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context about the spending policy but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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