threads_get_publishing_limit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses concrete behavioral information—the quota limits for posts and replies—which is essential for the user. It does not mention authorization or side effects, but for a simple read-only check these are less critical, and the output schema is present to document return values.

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 extremely concise—two lines—and front-loads the core purpose and quota numbers. The 'Args' line is minor boilerplate but does not detract from the clarity.

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?

This is a simple tool with an output schema that likely explains return values, so the description only needs to convey the operation and key limits, which it does. The complexity is low, and the description covers all necessary context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description mentions 'ctx' as a FastMCP request context, which is a framework detail and not a user-facing parameter, so it does not meaningfully affect parameter semantics.

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 'Check remaining publishing quota' with specific daily limits (250 posts/day, 1000 replies/day). The verb 'check' and resource 'publishing quota' precisely identify the tool's function, and no sibling tool mentions quota, so it is well-distinguished.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for checking publishing quota, and there are no sibling tools with similar functionality to confuse it with. It doesn't explicitly state 'use before creating a post' or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous and no alternatives exist.

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