allocate_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the greedy selection logic, the ranking formula, the output limit (200), and the notable fact that the skipped list is not returned but is the complement of the selection. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, but for a selection operation this is a minor gap given the detailed behavioral description.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by one clarifying sentence about the skipped list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and algorithm, and every clause carries useful information. It is concise enough for the amount of content, though it could be slightly more scannable with bullet points for the output elements.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description must explain the return values and behavior. It covers the selected targets, counts, estimated seconds, coverage, the 200-item limit, and the complement nature of the skipped list. It does not explicitly state a prerequisite that a verification plan must exist, but this is implied by the context of sibling tools and the term 'verification targets'. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already fully documents the single parameter 'minutes' with typical values (5, 15, 60). The description merely restates that it is a time budget and does not add any new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics.

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 action (selects), the resource (highest-leverage subset of verification targets), and the specific algorithm (greedy, ranked by a formula). It also enumerates the outputs, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. Though it doesn't name a sibling, its specificity distinguishes it from the general planning and analysis tools in the list.

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 usage when a time budget is given and a subset of verification targets must be chosen, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like generate_verification_plan or identify_unverified_behaviors. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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