Pagebolt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks usage and limits, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns real-time data, includes rate limit information, or has any side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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, clear sentence: 'Check your current PageBolt API usage and plan limits.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context on what 'check' entails, but it's adequate for a simple read operation, though with clear gaps.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline score of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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's purpose: 'Check your current PageBolt API usage and plan limits.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('PageBolt API usage and plan limits'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_sessions' or 'list_devices', which might also involve checking or listing resources, though those are more specific to sessions and devices rather than API usage.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as needing an active session or authentication, nor does it suggest scenarios where checking usage is appropriate (e.g., before running resource-intensive operations). With no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, it leaves usage context implied at best.

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