redcon_budget

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'per-file token costs, chosen strategies, and which files must be dropped to stay under the budget,' clearly explaining output and behavior. No side effects or destructive actions mentioned, likely a read-only planning tool.

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?

Two highly informative sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and core behavior; second gives immediate usage context. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (token costs, strategies, dropped files). It covers when to use and what to expect. Lacks explanation of repo parameter and error conditions, but for a focused planning tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described), meeting baseline 3. Description adds no new meaning beyond schema for the parameters, but the description's output explanation ('choosing a compression strategy per file') provides context for interpreting the files parameter. The repo parameter lacks description but has a default.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool plans how to fit files into a token budget with per-file compression strategies. It distinguishes from sibling tools like redcon_compress (which compresses a single file) and redcon_repo_map (which maps repository structure).

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?

Description says 'Use BEFORE reading several files at once, whenever their combined size could blow the context,' providing clear when-to-use context. It does not list alternatives but implies when not to use (not for single-file reading).

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