redcon_budget

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

The description discloses that the tool returns per-file token costs, strategies, and which files to drop, which is useful behavioral information. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does not explicitly state whether the tool performs read-only analysis or has side effects. It also doesn't mention any permissions or rate limits.

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-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance. Every clause adds value; no filler.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, usage timing, and return values, which is important since there is no output schema. It lacks details on the compression strategies or how token costs are computed, but it is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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 already provides descriptions for files, max_tokens, and task (75% coverage), and the description adds context about the tool's planning purpose. It doesn't elaborate on the repo parameter or provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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's function: planning how to fit files under a token budget and selecting compression strategies per file. It mentions specific outputs (per-file token costs, strategies, and files to drop), and the verb 'Plan' distinguishes it from sibling tools like redcon_compress that likely execute compression.

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 explicitly says 'Use before reading several files at once', providing a clear usage scenario. It doesn't name alternative tools but implies when to use it relative to reading files. It could be improved by mentioning what not to use it for.

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