Get VULK Usage (Legacy)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc., so the description adds no new behavioral info beyond being an alias. It does not contradict annotations, but fails to disclose any additional traits like return format or scope.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and relationship to a sibling. Perfectly concise for a simple alias.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is partially complete. However, it relies entirely on the sibling 'get_usage' for details on return values and behavior, leaving ambiguity for agents without access to that tool's description.

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?

With no parameters (schema coverage 100%), the description cannot add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents parameters (none exist).

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 'Legacy alias for get_usage' combined with the title 'Get VULK Usage (Legacy)' clearly indicates the tool is a read-only wrapper for usage data, and distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_usage' by noting its legacy status.

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 that 'get_usage' is the modern equivalent, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this alias or provide exclusion criteria. The legacy label gives some context, but lacks direct guidance on usage scenarios.

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