get_quota_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists output fields and implies a read operation, but does not mention safety, side effects, rate limits, or permissions. For a data retrieval tool, some reassurance of non-destructiveness or cost implications would be beneficial.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Every element (verb, resource, listed fields) is functional and front-loaded.

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?

The description lists several output fields, which is helpful given no output schema, but lacks explanation of the '5h cycle' context, units for burn rate (though partly implied), and any mention of additional fields that might be returned. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

No parameters are defined, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline is 3 per guidelines since the schema already captures all needed info.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving 'Claude Code quota status' and lists specific fields (usage %, plan type, weekly hours per model, burn rate), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_usage_insights or get_weekly_insight, which may overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions where another tool would be preferred.

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