plan_limits_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'generate' and does not state whether this writes a file, modifies an existing configuration, requires authentication, or returns a configuration object. This leaves side effects and expected behavior opaque.

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 focused sentence with no filler and no duplication of schema details. It front-loads the main purpose immediately.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits return format, side effects, default enforcement behavior, and authentication expectations. For a tool with nested plan objects and optional parameters, this is not enough contextual information for reliable selection and 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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds useful semantic labels like 'rate limits', 'storage quotas', and 'feature caps' that map to rate_limit_rpm, storage_mb, and seats, but it does not explain the enforcement enum, the api_key's role, or the structure of the plans array beyond what the schema already shows.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Generate a plan limits configuration with rate limits, storage quotas, and feature caps.' It maps well to the schema fields rate_limit_rpm, storage_mb, and seats, and no sibling tool appears to cover the same plan-limits domain.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. In a large list of similar 'generate_*' tools, there is nothing to help an agent decide this is the right tool.

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