report_quota_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a state mutation. It does not say what a reset actually does (clear cooldown? re-enable traffic?), whether the change is reversible, what 'open' versus 'half_open' mean operationally, or what side effects a manual override has. Only the action vocabulary is disclosed, not the consequences.

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 and the action list parenthesized at the end. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing per se.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but everything else is missing: this is a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema description coverage, and the description never covers scope (which harness/model is affected) or the effect of the cooldown. For a four-parameter write operation, this is substantially under-described.

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% across four parameters, and the schema defines no enums, so the description is the only source of meaning. It supplies the valid action values (reset, open, half_open) but never explains what each does, and leaves 'model', 'harness', and especially 'cooldown_seconds' entirely undefined despite cooldown being the key knob for a circuit tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource (reset/mark a quota circuit) and enumerates three actions, so the mutation intent is visible. However, the tool name 'report_quota_status' suggests a read/report operation, and the sibling 'get_quota_status' is the obvious read counterpart that the description never mentions. An agent must reconcile the misleading name against the description to understand this is a write tool.

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?

'Manually' implies this is the override path versus some automatic circuit behavior, which is a faint usage cue. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer 'get_quota_status' instead, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or operational state needed before resetting a circuit.

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