get_budget_burn

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

The description aligns with readOnlyHint annotation, explains RAG status formula, and hints at filtering with min_burn_pct. However, it does not disclose default limit behavior or what happens when project_id is omitted, though annotations reduce the burden somewhat.

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 sentences front-load purpose and return values, define RAG status, and provide a usage tip. Every sentence is valuable and well-structured.

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 read-only analysis tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, RAG logic, and a practical usage tip. Could mention default limit or scoping, but overall 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 100%, but the description adds value by suggesting a specific usage of min_burn_pct (showing at-risk projects) beyond the schema's generic 'Only show budgets above this burn %'.

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 'Analyse budget burn for rb2 projects' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_deal or list_project_deals by focusing on budget burn analysis.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Use min_burn_pct=70 to show only at-risk projects,' but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools. Context is clear for the intended use case.

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