x_rate_limit_status

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

The description explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: it dumps in-process local state and makes no API call. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation by clarifying the source of data and the absence of network activity, leaving no hidden side effects.

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?

One dense, information-rich sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds precise detail about buckets, windows, and fields. Every phrase carries weight with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, where the data comes from, and what the output represents. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and 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 and the schema documents that fully, so there is no parameter burden to compensate for. The description still adds value by explaining what the returned rate-limit table contains.

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 names a specific verb ('dump') and a precise resource ('in-process rate-limit table'), then enumerates exactly what is included: bucket, window, limit, remaining, reset time, exhaustion flag. This clearly distinguishes it from auth-status or usage tools in the sibling list.

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 states the tool reads local state only and makes no API call, which gives a clear reason to prefer it for introspection without network side effects. It does not explicitly name an alternative for when remote/API rate-limit data is needed, but the context is clear enough.

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