get_weekly_limits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves usage limits (implying a read-only operation) but lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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 core action ('Get your 7-day weekly usage limits') and adds necessary detail ('broken down by model'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on when to use it versus siblings, behavioral traits, or output details. For a read-only tool with no complex schema, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete.

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 with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied as it avoids redundancy while being complete for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('weekly usage limits'), specifying the breakdown by model (all models combined, Opus, Sonnet). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_usage' by focusing specifically on 7-day weekly limits rather than general usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'check_rate_status' or 'get_session_usage', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_rate_status', 'get_session_usage', or 'get_usage'. It implies usage for checking weekly limits but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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