stg_spend_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Local only' is a useful hint that no network/external call is made, but it does not state read-only vs mutating nature, cost, permissions, or output shape, leaving the operation's behavior largely opaque.

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 short phrases, front-loaded with the metric list and tailed with the locality constraint. Nothing is padded, though the final 'Local only.' fragment is slightly abrupt.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the metric enumeration covers the report's contents. However, with a required parameter that is entirely undocumented and no usage routing, the definition is only minimally adequate for a single-parameter report 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'project' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no information about what the parameter accepts (ID, name, path?) or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the specific metrics reported (render spend, attempts per shot, first-try pass rate, failed renders), which is concrete and distinguishes it from a generic spend tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like stg_pricing or stg_qa_gate, but the content scope is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this versus stg_pricing, stg_inspect_render, or stg_qa_gate, and no preconditions or context are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the metric list.

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