driftguard_budget_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute real behavior: it warns proactively before the budget limit is crossed. However, it never states that the call is read-only, where the budget limit is configured, what threshold triggers the warning, or whether the warning arrives as part of the response or as an error. These gaps matter for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the monitored resource and ends with the differentiating warning behavior. Every clause earns its place and there is no padding or redundancy.

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 tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say what the caller actually receives (remaining budget, token counts, a boolean warning, an error on breach). The absence of that leaves the agent guessing about the return value and about whether a breach is signaled in-band or out-of-band.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it monitors spend and token telemetry for the current session and emits a warning before the budget limit is exceeded. That is clearly distinct from the snapshot, rollback, secret-scanning, and diagnostics siblings, none of which deal with cost budgets. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named sibling, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 'della sessione corrente' implies the tool is used during an active session to keep cost under control, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., before expensive operations, periodically), nor any exclusion or alternative. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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