pulse_guardrail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful context about how caps can be changed (only by USER config/env edits) and that no tool exists to raise them—helpful behavioral limits beyond the annotation.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences front-load the main purpose ('show the active spend caps') and add one essential limitation. No unnecessary words.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a key limitation. It could mention what the output looks like, but that's optional given the 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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description confirms no parameters are needed by showing the action directly, and the schema has no fields to describe.

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 shows active spend caps, with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('active spend caps'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pulse_call or pulse_balance by focusing on guardrails/caps.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use: when checking spend caps. The note that caps can only be changed by the user editing config gives a clear when-not-to-use for seeking a raise tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or comprehensive usage scenarios.

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