llm_budget

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

With no annotations present, the description fully discloses behavior: it reads from Budget Oracle, normalizes provider quota, details pressure calculation per provider type (local, Claude, API-key), and returns a formatted summary with pressure bars. This is comprehensive.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections: core purpose, calculation method, provider-specific behavior, and return value. Bullet points and efficient wording make it easy to parse.

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 tool with an output schema (exists but not detailed here), the description provides all necessary context: what it returns, how it works, and when to use it. No gaps identified.

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 input schema has zero parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description correctly adds no parameter information. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Show real-time budget pressure for all configured providers', specifying both the verb 'show' and the resource 'budget pressure'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like llm_quota_status or llm_usage by focusing on aggregated budget pressure.

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 explains that this tool is used to view live budget state normalized into a pressure value. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools and clear purpose provides adequate guidance. Could be improved by mentioning when to use alternatives like llm_quota_status.

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