get_budget_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose any relevant behavior. The description only states the data returned (planned vs actual by category) and does not clarify whether it includes all categories, how it handles missing budgets, or if it is purely read-only. As a simple getter, the risk is low, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the purpose and the schema covers parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the output structure (e.g., list, object) or whether it includes zero values, leaving some ambiguity. Overall adequate for its complexity, but not maximally 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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions and defaults, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 planned vs actual amounts broken down by category. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_spending_by_category or get_monthly_summary.

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 provides no guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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