rate_limit_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the counter covers a one-minute window, is scoped to 'this server', and is explicitly a factual observed count rather than an official quota. That caveat prevents an agent from misinterpreting the number as a hard limit. It stops short of describing the return shape or whether the counter resets or is monotonic.

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 measurement front-loaded and the important caveat second. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter, read-only monitoring tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is counted, the time window, the scope, and the reliability caveat. Only the return value's format (presumably a single number) is left unstated, which is a minor 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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 states a specific measurement: the number of Figma REST API requests sent from this server in the last minute. That is a concrete verb-and-resource-level purpose an agent can grasp immediately. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the node-manipulation siblings, but its monitoring nature is self-evident from the wording.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for checking whether it is approaching API throttling before making many calls. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, and no guidance on what to do with the returned count.

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