bitpull_file_limits

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the value is dynamic ('right now'), and splitting a job preserves the result while the parts run in parallel. It does not describe the shape of the response or what determines the limit, leaving a modest gap.

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 short sentences, with the core question (how much) leading and the follow-up action second; nothing is padded. The phrase 'and why not more' is slightly loose but still earns its place by signaling the response includes reasoning.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It leaves unclear how the limit is expressed (bytes, per-user vs network tier) and whether the placement choice affects the answer, which an agent would need in order to act on the result confidently.

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 100% and the single 'placement' parameter is fully documented with its enum semantics in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries all parameter meaning.

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 names the specific resource: how much data one job can carry, phrased as a live/current value ('right now'), plus the reason behind the limit. It tells an agent what information comes back, though it never names the action (get/check) or distinguishes itself from limit-related siblings such as bitpull_set_ai_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?

'When a job is bigger, split it' gives downstream guidance for what to do with the answer, which implies the tool is consulted before sizing a job. However, it never states when to call this versus alternatives, nor any precondition (e.g. call before creating a job), so the when-to-use is only implied.

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