get_budget_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (limit, spent, remaining) and key type requirements, but does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding usage context. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 simple tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and who can use it. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior when agent_id is omitted, which leaves some gaps.

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 100%, with agent_id described as 'Agent ID (operators only, omit for current agent)'. The description adds 'Works with operator or agent keys', which reinforces the schema but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves budget status (limit, spent, remaining) for an agent, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_balance' and 'set_budget' by focusing on budget rather than balance or modification.

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 mentions it works with operator or agent keys, implying who can use it, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_balance) or when not to use it. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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