gc_cash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description mentions key behaviors (actions supported, drift detection as a feature) but doesn't disclose mutation semantics (what delete/update destroy), auth requirements, or rates. For a tool with multiple mutating actions and no annotation coverage, it provides only minimal behavioral context beyond the action list.

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 brief at 3 sentences and communicates the core purpose and action list efficiently. However, it's somewhat under-specified—20 parameters with 9 actions deserve slightly more structural explanation (e.g., grouping which params apply to which action) to be most useful. Still, no wasted words.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool: 20 parameters, 9 enum-driven actions, no output schema, no annotations. The description lists actions but fails to map actions to their relevant parameters or explain the behavioral differences between actions. Given the high complexity and available surface area, the description should provide far more (e.g., which params each action requires/accepts, what runway/forecast/drift return) but does not.

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 100%, so the schema documents all 20 parameters. With high coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds the distinction that amount can be 'cents or euros' which the schema also states, so no additional meaning beyond schema is added. The description doesn't clarify how 'action' interacts with the 19 other optional params (e.g., which params apply to which action), which would be genuinely additive value.

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 'Track money in/out' with the specific derived functions (runway, forecasts, drift detection), establishing it as a cash-tracking tool. It lists 9 actions (add/update/delete/get/query/runway/monthly/forecast/drift) which gives concrete scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the gc_cost sibling, and 'drift detection' is mentioned without explanation, slightly reducing clarity.

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 lists what actions are available but gives no guidance on WHEN to use this tool vs alternatives like gc_cost or gc_banks. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites (e.g., must input cash_on_hand for runway) are provided. The nine-action enumeration is just a catalog, not usage guidance.

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