get_account_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'overview' suggests no side effects. However, the description does not explicitly state that it modifies nothing, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral details. It gives a basic inference but lacks depth.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action ('Get an overview') and resource ('cPanel account') before adding specific details. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool has zero parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'disk/bandwidth quota usage and general stats', which covers the key return elements but remains somewhat vague on 'general stats'. Given the simplicity of the tool and its distinct role among siblings, the description is adequate but lacks specific detail on the exact set of stats or response format.

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 input schema is trivially 100% covered. The description does not need to explain parameters. According to the rubric, 0 params corresponds to a baseline of 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information, so the baseline applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get an overview of the cPanel account'. It specifies the content (disk/bandwidth quota usage and general stats), which is distinct from sibling tools that focus on databases, domains, DNS, emails, or files. This is a unique account-level summary tool, so it distinguishes itself well.

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 by stating 'Get an overview of the cPanel account', making it clear this is for high-level account stats. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it does not reach the higher bars.

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