ecp_resource_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only status check, and the examples specify what kinds of conditions are surfaced. It does not explicitly state it has no side effects, but the verb and status framing leave little ambiguity.

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 that directly states the purpose with illustrative examples. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the object, scope, and example result categories. It does not detail the exact response structure, but the examples provide enough orientation for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema already fully covers invocation semantics. The description adds helpful context about what the status covers, but no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('this account's resource/quota status'), with concrete examples like disk/CPU pressure and suspension warnings. It is distinguishable from the sibling ecp_resource_status_dismiss, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with ecp_system_disk_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 context for use is implied: check account-level resource/quota status and pressure warnings. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools like ecp_system_disk_usage or how it relates to ecp_resource_status_dismiss.

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