check_aggregate_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the check purpose, but does not mention side effects (if any), return format, what 'violate' means, or whether it is read-only. Minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious read-only implication of a 'check' operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly names the operation and subject. It is concise and well-structured, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context about parameter relationships, return values, error conditions, and the meaning of 'aggregate rate limits' in terms of the inputs. The description is inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level context. The 9 parameters, including required fields like currentAccessCount and windowStartMs, are completely unexplained. The description adds no value over the bare schema field names.

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 'check' with a clear resource 'aggregate rate limits', making it distinct from many other check_* siblings. It states exactly what the tool evaluates, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related check tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_usage_permitted or check_purpose_permitted. The description only states what it does, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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