kenda_spend_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Top-line... for your org,' failing to mention what data is aggregated, whether it's read-only, any time range constraints, or how 'health' is computed. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 sentence, achieving conciseness, but it is vague and lacks detail. It does not waste words but also does not fully inform the agent.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the output more thoroughly. It only names three aspects (spend, waste, health) without definitions or structure, leaving the agent uninformed about what it will receive.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by indicating the tool returns a summary of spend, waste, and health, which clarifies the output nature. However, it does not elaborate on the output structure or format.

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 returns 'Top-line Kenda spend, waste, and health for your org,' indicating it provides a high-level summary. The sibling 'kenda_waste_by_agent' suggests a more granular focus, so the purpose is distinct enough. However, 'health' is undefined, making it slightly vague.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'kenda_waste_by_agent'. The description implies it's for a top-level overview, but explicit conditions or exclusions are absent.

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