get_budgets

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 lists budgets in Markdown format, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns all budgets or a subset, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, resource, and output format. It's front-loaded with the essential information and has no redundant or verbose elements. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose and output format, but lacks context on authentication, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a read operation in a financial context, more behavioral transparency would improve completeness, though the low complexity keeps it from being severely inadequate.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. It adds value by specifying the output format ('Markdown format'), which isn't covered by the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this by focusing on output details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all YNAB budgets'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies the output format ('Markdown format'), which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_accounts' or 'get_categories', which follow similar patterns for different resources.

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., whether authentication is required), nor does it explain how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'set_preferred_budget_id' or 'get_transactions'. There's no indication of when this listing operation is appropriate versus more specific queries.

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