llm_savings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the return format ('formatted savings table with efficiency multiplier') but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but not rich, providing only basic behavior.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs. The first paragraph states the core output upfront, and the second gives usage context. Every sentence adds value; no waste.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains what the tool shows, the periods, and the purpose. No additional details are needed for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). According to the guidelines, with 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, so the score remains 4.

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 shows a time-bucketed savings dashboard with specific periods (today, this week, this month, all-time) and explains it displays actual spend vs Sonnet baseline and efficiency multiplier. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like llm_dashboard or llm_budget.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to understand the real dollar value routing provides.' This tells when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would be helpful given siblings like llm_dashboard.

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