Get the workspace usage cap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context beyond that by naming the required workspace-scoped read key and enumerating the returned billing data.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the returned data, ending with the key prerequisite. There is no wasted text.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides enough detail by enumerating the values returned and stating the auth requirement. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter semantics and appropriately focuses on returned information.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Return', and a clear resource, the workspace's monthly qualified-install cap, alert email, billing period, and usage. It implicitly contrasts with set_usage_cap through its read-only wording, but it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

It states the authentication prerequisite but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative such as set_usage_cap for changing the cap. The read-only use case is inferable, but the description leaves routing to inference.

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