report_limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: unstarted tasks move to the next agent in the fallback chain after a short grace period, and the sender is notified. However, it omits permission requirements, what happens to in-flight tasks, reversibility, and how the handoff interacts with other tools.

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?

It is short and front-loads the trigger question, followed by consequences and the `minutes` definition. The formatting is compact and readable, though the causal description of the fallback handoff could be sharper.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, it covers the trigger, handoff behavior, and one parameter. It still lacks guidance on the `reason` parameter, the distinction from siblings, and operational details like grace-period duration or any required permissions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `minutes` as 'estimate until reset' and leaves `reason` undocumented, which is the weaker of the two parameters. The description adds real meaning for one of two params but does not fully cover the schema gap.

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 frames the tool as reporting that the agent is out of quota/rate limit, with a call-to-action 'Call THIS before you stop.' It implies the tool signals a limit condition, but it never states the action plainly (e.g., 'report that you have hit a rate limit and hand off unstarted tasks'). Compared to siblings like release/retry/cancel, the specifics of what report_limit actually does are only inferable.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('Running out of quota/rate limit?') and urgency framing ('Call THIS before you stop'). It does not mention alternatives such as retry or release, nor when not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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