kiln_spend_caps_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it declares the auth prerequisite, discloses what the response contains (per-order and monthly caps, defaults, agent_flow_enabled), and warns that a conditional next_step field will appear. The instruction to give the link 'as written' because enabling cannot be done from chat is exactly the kind of non-obvious operational context annotations could never provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then the auth prerequisite in order of what an agent needs. Slightly verbose in the middle paragraph and the indented formatting is odd, but no sentence is redundant.

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 needn't be enumerated, yet the description still summarizes the key fields and, more importantly, flags the conditional next_step and the verbatim-relay rule. Combined with the auth prerequisite, nothing an agent needs to call and act on this tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the description correctly spends no words on inputs. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool, with no gaps introduced.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource (show spend caps) and adds a scope qualifier ('whether chat may change them') that implicitly separates it from the kiln_spend_caps_request_change / confirm_change siblings. It never names a sibling outright, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unmistakable.

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?

It establishes a clear precondition ('Needs a signed-in session: call kiln_signin first') and routes the agent: when agent_flow_enabled is off, hand the returned link to the user rather than trying to fix it in chat. It does not explicitly state when to prefer the request/confirm_change siblings, so the change-path guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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