get_session_usage

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 the tool's purpose and output semantics (burst limit usage and reset time) but lacks details on behavioral traits like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers only basic operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes all necessary details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only tool with no structured data, it meets basic needs but could be more comprehensive.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since it compensates well for the lack of parameters by clarifying what the tool returns.

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 the specific action ('Get'), resource ('your current 5-hour session usage window'), and scope ('how much of your burst limit you have used and when it resets'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on session-specific burst limits rather than rate status, general usage, or weekly limits.

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 implies usage context for monitoring burst limit consumption and reset timing, which helps differentiate from siblings like 'get_weekly_limits' or 'check_rate_status'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, preventing a perfect score.

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