qa_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that it estimates draw calls via batch-break logic and that it returns over-budget items plus remediation, implying a non-mutating analysis. It does not state read-only status, required files/permissions, or cost, leaving meaningful 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in sentence one, followed by profile values and metric enumeration. Dense but each clause adds information; the parenthetical about blend-mode/page changes is useful rather than padding.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return value well (over-budget items and fixes) and enumerates the profile options. But it leaves 'project' and 'atlas' undocumented and gives no prerequisites, so an agent still lacks what it needs to call it correctly in edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing. The description compensates for one of three parameters by listing valid profile values (mobile_symbol, mobile_banner, mobile_character, desktop) that appear nowhere in the schema. It says nothing about 'project' or the 'atlas' parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it's the performance-budget QA check for mobile web, and it enumerates exactly which metrics it counts (bones, slots, vertices, draw calls). That is far more than a tautology. It stops short of naming how it differs from the sibling 'qa_character', so it isn't fully differentiated.

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 says what the tool is but never states when to reach for it versus alternatives like qa_character or validate, nor whether it should run before export_runtime or after packing. Usage is only implied by the 'mobile web' framing, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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