list_months

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential errors (e.g., invalid budget_id), rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination for large result sets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all budget months') and adds necessary detail about return values. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from output details).

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or return format specifics (beyond high-level fields). It meets basic needs but leaves gaps for reliable agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'budget_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints). According to scoring rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is in the description.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all budget months'), and specifies what data is returned ('month summaries with income, budgeted, and activity totals'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_month' by indicating it retrieves multiple months rather than a single month. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* tools like 'list_budgets' or 'list_transactions'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid budget_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_month' (for single month details) or 'list_budgets' (for listing budgets first). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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