code-fundi-model-limits

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It adds context about what the response includes (subscription tokens, model limits, account limits) and the endpoint. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios, but given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that packs relevant information: the action, the resource, and the categories of data returned. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the endpoint in parentheses for precision. No fluff, though the enumeration at the end is a bit dense.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does this adequately by listing the major data categories. Given the tool's simple nature and read-only hint, this is reasonably complete. It might miss a formal response format but covers the content scope.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter explanations, but none are needed. It does clarify the meaning of the resource (limits), which is useful.

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 tool retrieves AI model limits and tier configuration for the account, naming specific categories (subscription tokens, context/knowledge limits, account limits). It uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource, and the endpoint reinforces the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like code-fundi-list-models, which likely lists model IDs rather than limits.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, but it provides clear context that this is for account-level limits and tier configuration. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions. Usage is implied based on the content described, but an agent might need to infer whether to use list-models or this tool.

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