get_budget_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only aggregate behavior via 'Return' and 'snapshot', details the output as structured JSON, and explains the system-wide scope. It stops short of explicitly stating 'does not modify any state' or discussing failures, but for a zero-parameter getter the behavioral disclosure is solid.

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, each earning its place: the first states output scope and fields, the second states exactly when the tool should be used. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the returned fields, the format, the scope, and primary usage scenarios. An agent can invoke this 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 no parameters, so the schema already fully covers this dimension. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning but also does not need to; 0-parameter tools get a baseline score of 4 since there is nothing to clarify.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full current state of every registered agent' and enumerates the exact fields (priority, allocated budget, consumed tokens, remaining budget, and min_reserve). It is clearly differentiated from siblings by emphasizing the system-wide, all-agents scope, unlike get_remaining_budget presumably, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives concrete usage contexts: 'before deciding whether a reallocation is needed' and 'to let an orchestrator/human inspect overall budget health across all agents at once.' It clearly implies a system-wide monitoring role, though it does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools by name.

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