trw_probe_budget_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only — never mutates budget state' and discloses the return structure. It does not mention rate limits or prerequisites, but for a read-only report, this is sufficient.

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 with three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and structured into two clear paragraphs. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 optional params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, return structure, and behavior. The output schema exists so return value details are not needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'planning_mode' in the return context, not its input meaning. Parameters 'run_id' and 'planning_mode' are not explained, leaving the agent to rely on defaults without guidance on when to override.

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 reports live probe budget usage for a session (read-only), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trw_probe' and 'trw_status' by focusing on budget usage and mentioning FR-10.

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?

It explicitly describes when to use ('detect runaway probe usage before it becomes cost/latency creep') and states it's read-only. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over similar tools.

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