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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the parameter is optional and defaults to the current project, and that the return is a JSON string. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., if the project does not exist), required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise, with a clear structure including an Args section and a Returns section. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, making it easy to scan. There is no redundant information, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 (one optional parameter, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It covers the parameter, return type, and provides an analogy. However, it could mention error handling or the specific quota categories (compute, storage, etc.), but the output schema presumably covers return details. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple information retrieval tool.

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 input schema has one parameter (project_name) with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by stating the parameter is optional, defaults to the current project, and is the name of the project. This adds semantic value beyond the schema definition, clarifying the default behavior and usage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves quota information for projects, using the verb 'get' with the specific resource 'quota information for projects'. It also provides an analogy to 'openstack quota show', which helps understanding. Although there is a sibling 'get_load_balancer_quotas', the description uniquely identifies this tool for project-level quotas, effectively distinguishing it.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_load_balancer_quotas or get_usage_statistics. It mentions similarity to openstack quota show but does not explain scenarios where this tool is preferred or when to avoid it. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tool mentions are included.

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