list_credit_thresholds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond the obvious: mentions the three webhook types (credit.warning, credit.at_limit, credit.recovered) and the authentication requirement (agent key floe_...). This goes beyond a bare 'list' statement, though it does not cover return format or error behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by two concise pieces of behavioral context. No superfluous words, no repetition of the tool name beyond the necessary subject. Excellent structure.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, associated webhook events, and authentication. It could mention what the return value looks like, but that is easily inferred for a list operation. The description is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param details. It correctly omits what does not exist.

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 function: 'List the agent's registered credit-utilization thresholds.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('credit-utilization thresholds'), and the added detail about webhook events distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like register_credit_threshold and delete_credit_threshold.

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 is clear: this is for reading registered credit thresholds. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the simple read-only nature and zero parameters, the intended use is obvious. No exclusions are needed, so it earns a 4.

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