llm_budget

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: it reads live budget state, normalizes pressure, and outlines provider-specific calculations. It mentions version requirement (v5.0+) but does not explicitly state non-destructive nature, though it is implicit.

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 a clear purpose upfront, followed by details on the oracle, provider sources, and return format. While informative, it could be slightly more concise; every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: a formatted budget summary'), the description covers key behavioral aspects: live reads, normalized pressure, and per-provider handling. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Baseline score for no parameters is 4; description adds no parameter info but none is needed.

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 clearly states 'Show real-time budget pressure for all configured providers' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like llm_quota_status and llm_usage by focusing on normalized 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?

Description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like llm_quota_status or llm_check_usage. Usage is implied but no when-not-to or alternative guidance is provided.

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