get_kb_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious scoping behavior — workspaceId is optional and falls back to the authenticated workspace — which is real behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the parameter caveat following. Nothing repeats the name or title verbatim.

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?

The call mechanics are complete, but with no output schema the description never indicates what the quota response contains (used vs. limit vs. remaining) or whether it is per-workspace aggregated. For a read-only, single-param tool that is a modest but real gap.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it identifies workspaceId as optional and explains what happens when it is omitted. That fully covers the only parameter, though it gives no hint about the expected ID format or where to obtain one.

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 verb and resource ("Get workspace KB document quota usage") plus the backing endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what is being fetched. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby get_kb_stats sibling, which an agent could plausibly confuse with quota reporting.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — check KB storage/quota consumption — and the defaulting rule removes the main decision point. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to get_kb_stats or get_kb_docs_bulk as alternatives.

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