get-rate-limit-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is retrieved but doesn't describe how the data is sourced (e.g., from an API endpoint, cached values), whether it requires authentication, potential rate limits on this call itself, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get current rate limiting status') and specifies key details ('including remaining tokens and refresh times'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, data freshness) and doesn't explain return values, which is a gap since no output schema exists. For a diagnostic tool, more detail on usage and output would improve completeness.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary details.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current rate limiting status', specifying what information is retrieved (remaining tokens and refresh times). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rate limits rather than user scopes, boards, workspaces, or other resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, just implies a unique purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after API calls to monitor limits), exclusions, or relate to sibling tools like 'test-connection' or 'debug-api-response' that might be used in similar diagnostic contexts. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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