get_credit_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the output fields: 'included credits, purchased credits, total available, and credits used this billing cycle.' This provides transparency about what the tool returns, though it doesn't mention side effects (none expected for a read).

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: the first states the purpose, the second lists returned fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers what the user needs to know: what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention that the output is a single object, but that's minor. The description is complete for a simple balance retrieval.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per rubric. The description does not need to add meaning for parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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.' It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'credit balance', and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_credit_bundles (which lists purchase options) and credits_checkout (for buying credits).

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve credit balance) without explicit alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling context and the tool's simplicity, the guidance is clear enough, but it could be more explicit about when not to use it, e.g., for purchasing credits.

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