romeo_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it reports soft-quota exceedances and grace-period expiry, and notes that exceeding the grace period blocks writes. That write-blocking consequence is genuinely useful operational knowledge.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant content (what it reads and the write-blocking risk) is front-loaded. The usage cue is properly placed last as the call-to-action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and the read-only nature is carried by annotations. The description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it; only the parameter semantics remain thin.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single `project` parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the space categories (home, scratch, projet), hinting at what `project` selects, but gives no format, optionality, or default semantics for the parameter.

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?

States a specific resource (real storage quotas per space: home, scratch, project) and a concrete mechanism (`mmlsquota`), which distinguishes it from generic cluster-status siblings like romeo_status. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it differs from or scope what it does NOT cover.

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?

Explicitly states when to consult it: "A consulter avant de produire des sorties volumineuses" (check before producing large outputs), which is a clear usage trigger. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, so it falls short of a 5.

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