get_credit_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the return components (included credits, purchased credits, total available, credits used this billing cycle), which gives the agent insight into what to expect. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects or prerequisites, though for a simple getter this is largely sufficient. It adds value beyond the name by detailing the output.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and free of any fluff or repetition. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second details the return fields. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It clearly names the resource ('Commune account'), states the action, and enumerates the returned data. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 purpose: 'Get current credit balance for your Commune account.' This is a specific verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_credit_bundles' or 'credits_checkout'. It also enumerates the exact pieces of information returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool—whenever a user needs their current credit balance and its breakdown. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are functionally distinct, so context alone is sufficient. The description is clear and unambiguous, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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