rate_limit_limiter_list

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

The description implies a read-only operation by listing active limiters, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention authorization requirements or rate limit on the tool itself. Without annotations, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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 a single sentence with a clear tag prefix, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: it specifies the category, action, resource, and result scope.

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 description adequately explains the tool's purpose for a list operation. It includes the resource ('active limiters') and the output ('current state'). However, it does not mention potential pitfalls, such as whether the list is paginated or applies to a specific scope. Given the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'active limiters', and specifies that it returns their 'current state'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rate_limit_limiter_status (likely single limiter) and rate_limit_limiter_create (creation).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus other rate limit tools, such as when checking a specific limiter's status or acquiring a token. There is no mention of alternatives or context.

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