Check and enforce rate limiting for a client. In-memory sliding window — state resets on cold start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max requests per window (default: 100) | |
| client_id | Yes | Unique client identifier | |
| window_ms | No | Window in ms (default: 60000) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: it uses an in-memory sliding window and state resets on cold start. This adds meaningful context for correctness. However, it does not describe enforcement details (e.g., what happens when the limit is exceeded) or return 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 sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the key behavioral caveat in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about return values or enforcement behavior. It covers the core purpose and one limitation (state reset), but lacks details on success/failure responses or how 'enforce' manifests. This is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters (e.g., how limit and window_ms interact), but the schema already provides the necessary definitions.
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's function with a specific verb ('Check and enforce rate limiting') and resource ('rate limiting for a client'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (complexity_meter, query_rewriter) which serve different purposes.
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 implies usage (if you need rate limiting, use this tool) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It lacks direct guidance on when not to use this tool or when a sibling would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: complexity analysis, query rewriting, and rate limiting. There is no overlap in purpose or behavior.
All tool names follow the same snake_case pattern with a noun+verb style (complexity_meter, query_rewriter, rate_limiter). Consistent and predictable.
Three tools cover the core aspects of a GraphQL DoS shield (analysis, mitigation, and client limiting). The count feels appropriate for the narrow scope.
The surface covers the main stages of DoS protection: analyze complexity, rewrite problematic queries, and rate-limit clients. A minor gap is the lack of a manual reset or configuration tool, but the core workflow is complete.