get_spend_limit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the return shape ({ active: false } when no cap), and the authentication requirement (agent key floe_...). It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, but 'Return' implies it. This is solid transparency for a simple getter.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second gives the absence return value, and the third provides the authentication prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff or redundant details.

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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers what it returns, the special case when no cap is set, and the required credential. The sibling tool context makes it clear that this is the read-only counterpart to set_spend_limit and clear_spend_limit, so the agent has enough information to use 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 input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds the context that an agent key (floe_...) is required, which is an authentication requirement rather than a parameter. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not conflict with the empty schema.

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: to return the agent's currently-active session spend cap. It specifies the verb ('Return') and the resource ('the agent's currently-active session spend cap'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_spend_limit and clear_spend_limit by being read-only. The mention of returning { active: false } when no cap is set adds specificity.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to check the current spend cap. It implies the read-only nature and states a prerequisite (requires an agent key). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to set_spend_limit or clear_spend_limit for modifying the cap, which would earn a 5.

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