get_quota

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Get' implies a safe read with no side effects, and the tool is simple, so the risk of miscommunication is low. However, it does not state auth/permission expectations, whether the default 'current project' behavior differs, or what quota categories come back.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the CLI analogy attached; no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple single-parameter read. Still, with no annotations and no guidance on which quota categories (compute/network/storage) it returns, an agent must guess at scope.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional `project_name` parameter already documents the 'empty means current project' default. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get quota information for projects') and the parenthetical maps it to the familiar `openstack quota show`, which pins down scope. It is distinguishable from the sibling `get_load_balancer_quotas`, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader must infer this is the general project-quota tool versus `get_load_balancer_quotas` or `get_usage_statistics`. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are given beyond 'projects'.

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