rate_limit_limiter_create

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

The description explains the three algorithms' behaviors (e.g., fixed window, sliding no burst, token bucket with burst), which adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or error conditions. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but partially fulfills it.

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: a single sentence with a leading tag and algorithm notes. Every word adds value. No redundancy.

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 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter relationships or usage. It only covers algorithm semantics. The output schema exists but is not described; per rules, that is acceptable. However, the description leaves significant gaps about parameters like window_seconds and rate_per_second.

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%. The description only adds semantic meaning for the 'algorithm' parameter by describing its three options. The other five parameters (name, max_calls, window_seconds, rate_per_second, burst_capacity) are not explained, leaving the agent to infer from the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 'Create a named rate limiter' and lists three algorithms with behavioral summaries. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like rate_limit_limiter_acquire or rate_limit_limiter_delete.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description implies usage for creating rate limiters but does not provide context like prerequisites or alternatives. The algorithm descriptions offer some guidance on selecting an algorithm.

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