get_claude_code_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the tool's behavior: returns daily aggregated user activity, tool usage statistics, and token consumption, and specifies that it is separate from general usage and excludes Bedrock-routed Claude Code. Additional details like pagination or rate limits would improve transparency, but the core behavioral traits are well-covered.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose in the first sentence, details in the second, and an exclusion in the third. No redundant words, clearly structured, and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, an output schema, and a specific scope. The description covers the tool's domain and output well but lacks guidance on parameter usage (e.g., how to paginate, date format constraints) and does not provide any usage context or error scenarios. Given the output schema exists, completeness is adequate but leaves gaps in practical usage.

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 only 25% (only 'starting_at' has a description). The description does not add any meaning to the other three parameters ('ending_at', 'limit', 'page'). For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate by explaining parameter usage, but it does not. The description only describes the output nature, not the inputs.

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 tool retrieves usage data for Claude Code workspaces, detailing what is returned (daily aggregated user activity, tool usage, token consumption) and explicitly distinguishing it from the general usage report and excluding Bedrock-routed Claude Code. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like get_usage_report.

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 for Claude Code workspace data and mentions exclusions (Bedrock-routed), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide clear prerequisites or context for when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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