check_workspace_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Checks' implies a non-mutating read with no parameters, so the risk surface is inherently small, but the description never explicitly states read-only behavior, permission requirements, or whether results are cached/live.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause names a distinct piece of information the tool returns, so nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description's enumeration of the four returned metrics effectively documents the response shape, which is the main thing an agent needs. Only the absence of usage-timing guidance keeps it short of complete.

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 are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Checks') plus a clearly scoped resource ('current workspace submission quota, active plan tier, active forms count, cloud storage usage'). The four enumerated metrics leave no ambiguity, and none of the sibling tools (form CRUD, submissions, webhooks) overlap with this usage-reporting purpose.

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 never states when to call this tool — no mention of calling it before form creation to check quota, before uploads to check storage, or any other trigger condition. No alternatives exist among siblings, but no usage context is offered either.

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