kiln_spend_caps_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the auth requirement, the shape of the response (per-order and monthly caps, defaults, agent_flow_enabled), and the conditional next_step behavior. Rate limits and session-expiry behavior are unstated, keeping it at 4.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, then return shape, then the conditional next_step instruction, then the auth prerequisite. It is somewhat long and carries stray formatting (indented continuation lines, backtick-quoted identifiers) that reads more like docstring than tight guidance, 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already present, everything an agent needs is here: the auth prerequisite, what the response carries, and what to do when agent_flow_enabled is off. The description does not need to restate return-value structure because the output schema covers it.

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 for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space inventing parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show your current Kiln spend caps and whether chat may change them.' That distinguishes it from the mutating siblings (kiln_spend_caps_request_change, confirm_change, request_order_approval) by framing it as a read of current state. It stops short of naming those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite ('Needs a signed-in session: call kiln_signin first') and an operational instruction for the off case: hand the person the next_step link as written because enabling cannot be done from chat. That effectively routes the agent away from trying to change caps here, though it never explicitly names the request_change tools as the alternative path.

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