get-usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or that no side effects occur. The description is sufficient for a basic read tool but lacks extra transparency about potential constraints.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action ('Check your ScreenshotAPI account usage') and efficiently lists the key outputs in a dash-delimited series. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable enumeration of what the tool reports (remaining screenshots, credits, plan details, feature entitlements). It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure), but for a simple account-usage check this is mostly sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of mention of how data is returned.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds context about what the returned information covers (remaining screenshots, credits balance, etc.), which is helpful even though it is not parameter-related. No further parameter semantics are needed.

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 'Check' and resource 'ScreenshotAPI account usage', enumerating specific data points (remaining screenshots, credits balance, plan details, feature entitlements). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools that render or capture screenshots.

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 implies this tool is for account status inquiries but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or provide any exclusions. Since siblings are all screen-capture related, an agent can infer the purpose, but no explicit guidance is given.

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