check_quota

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job revealing the underlying logic: the 5-per-rolling-12h deploy limit applies only to accounts without entitlement, failed attempts count, containers refuse to start at 402 when free hours are exhausted, and unassigned Always-On subscriptions factor in. It stops short of stating that the tool is read-only, but the name 'check' and the lack of mutation language make that reasonable to infer.

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 dense but efficient. It leads with the core question, then adds necessary detail about the two limits and the Always-On caveat. Every clause carries useful information — no filler. It could be slightly more compact, but the specificity justifies the length.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. The question 'Can the user deploy and run apps right now?' implies a boolean answer, but the phrase 'Merges the deploy limit... and the free-hours cap... plus any unassigned Always-On subscriptions' suggests the result may be more structured (e.g., breakdown of limits). This is not explicitly described, leaving an agent uncertain about the return format. The logic is well covered, but the missing return specification is a notable gap.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't attempt to; it focuses entirely on the tool's behavior and output, which is appropriate.

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 opens with a direct question that captures the tool's purpose — 'Can the user deploy and run apps right now?' — and then specifies exactly what it merges: the deploy limit, the free-hours cap, and unassigned Always-On subscriptions. This is specific and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like deploy, get_status, or assign_always_on.

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 the tool is used to check whether deployment or app start will succeed given quota limits, but it does not explicitly say 'use this before calling deploy or start_container' or name alternative tools. The context is clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or routing to siblings.

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