budget_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the result format ('usage percentages and status indicators') and temporal scope ('this month'), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 declares the primary action and scope; the second describes the return format. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple zero-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the temporal scope, and the return format. It is mostly complete, though it could note if this includes all user-level budgets or workspace-level.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters; it instead clarifies the tool's output. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Get all budgets and current spending for this month,' specifying the action ('Get'), resource ('budgets and spending'), and temporal scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'budget_set' and 'expense_add' which are mutative or expense-specific.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. While the name and description imply retrieval, there is no mention of alternatives or exclusions among siblings such as 'budget_set' (settings) or 'expense_summary'.

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