Sampling Quota Guard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the authorization scope ('your operator only'). It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, how large the ledger might be, or what happens when no server is supplied.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification, and the parenthetical scope caveat is cryptic rather than clarifying.

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 domain-specific tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too thin. Only the operator-scope restriction is conveyed; an agent has no picture of the return shape or the read semantics needed to invoke this confidently.

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 single 'server' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and only partially does via the word 'per-server'. It leaves the fundamental ambiguity unresolved: the schema marks the parameter optional, yet the description never says whether omitting it returns rows for all servers or errors.

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 names a resource ('per-server sampling ledger rows') but supplies no verb, so an agent cannot tell whether it reads, lists, or computes anything. It is not pure tautology because 'per-server' and the ledger concept add some specificity, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from guard_meter, guard_policy, or guard_verdict.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus its three siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The parenthetical '(your operator only)' hints at a scope restriction on the data but does not tell an agent under which task conditions this tool is the right choice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: billing per the pricing sheet and that 'Denied requests never consume allowance.' However, it omits important side-effect details such as whether accepted requests mutate the ledger immediately, what permissions are required, and what the response looks like.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action before billing details. Every sentence adds relevant information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

The tool involves metering, billing, allowance checks, and scope clamping, but the description does not explain return values or error behavior. With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer before calling it.

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%, so the description must compensate for two parameters, including a nested request object. It only loosely identifies 'request' as a 'sampling/createMessage request' and 'server' as tied to a per-server ledger, without explaining the request object's structure or the server string format.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Meter one sampling/createMessage request against your per-server ledger.' It makes the core action clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as guard_verdict or guard_policy.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus guard_ledger, guard_policy, or guard_verdict. The description implies it is for metering a single request, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing about whether the tool reads or writes state, what permissions are needed, or what happens when a threshold is crossed. The single phrase supplies no behavioral context whatsoever.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than concision: the one fragment is not front-loaded with an action and no sentence earns its place by conveying usable information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter surface, the description is the only channel for explaining what this tool returns or represents, and it provides none of that. An agent cannot call this correctly based on the definition.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. No parameter-level detail is needed here.

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 is a noun phrase ('Your allowance + tunable threshold policy') with no verb, so it never says what the tool does with the policy — read it, evaluate it, or modify it. It hints at the resource (allowance/threshold) but is close to a restatement of the name, readable only against the sibling names guard_ledger/guard_meter/guard_verdict.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus guard_meter, guard_ledger or guard_verdict, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent has no basis for choosing it over its siblings.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuinely useful non-schema behavior — the result comes from the operator's own measured profile, and billing runs 100 free verdicts then $0.005 via x402 with a flat tier covering verdicts — but says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or what triggers INSUFFICIENT_DATA.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and its possible values, then the commercial terms. Dense but every clause carries information; only the pricing sentence is slightly compressed to the point of opacity ('flat tier covers verdicts').

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?

With no output schema the description does well to enumerate the return values, and it explains cost. But for a one-param tool it leaves the identifier format and the origin of the 'measured profile' unexplained — presumably guard_meter must run first — which is material to invoking 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'server' is an untyped-in-practice string with no description. The description never clarifies whether it takes a hostname, URL, server ID, or a record from guard_meter, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific output artifact (a pre-connect verdict drawn from the enumerated set ALLOW / CAUTION / DENY / INSUFFICIENT_DATA) scoped to one server, and ties it to 'your own measured profile.' It is clearly distinct in kind from guard_ledger, guard_meter and guard_policy, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Pre-connect' implies the moment of use: before connecting to a server. Beyond that timing cue there is no statement of when to prefer this over guard_policy or guard_meter, and no preconditions (e.g. whether a measured profile must already exist) are given.

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