get_quotas

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds that it reports usage against limits, indicating it returns a comparison. It does not detail pagination or response structure, but with the output schema present and readOnlyHint covering safety, the description adds adequate value beyond annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It provides essential information without any superfluous words. Each word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what is reported. It might mention whether it covers all regions or projects, but with openWorldHint and low complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to clarify. The schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously true). The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by specifying the scope of the report without needing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and explicitly names the resource 'compute quota usage' and the key attributes measured ('instances, vCPUs, and RAM'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_servers or list_flavors, which list entities rather than report usage against 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?

The description implies that this is the tool to check quota usage and limits, which is distinct from capacity check (check_capacity). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context implies its usage in compute resource planning. Given the sibling set includes check_capacity, some extra clarity could be added, but the purpose is clear enough.

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