vision_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states that reset clears the spend log, which is a side effect, but it does not mention other behaviors such as whether the report modifies any state, requires permissions, or has rate limits. The side-effect disclosure is incomplete.

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 concise, comprising two sentences that convey the main purpose and the reset behavior. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more organized by separating the report and reset actions.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple report tool, but it lacks information about the output format or content of the report (no output schema is provided). It also does not mention error conditions or edge cases, such as what happens if no session is found or if the reset value is invalid. This leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 schema descriptions already cover all three parameters (lease, reset, session) with details. The tool description adds a small clarification about reset's effect (clears the spend log), but it doesn't enhance understanding of the other parameters. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the added info is marginal.

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 function: reporting today and lifetime vision spend against caps. The verb 'Report' and resource 'vision spend vs caps' are specific enough to distinguish it from other vision-related tools, though it could be more explicit about its role in the overall workflow.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like vision_stats or vision_clear_cache. It mentions the reset parameter for clearing the log but offers no context about typical use cases or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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