check_feature_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only operation ('check') but does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds no value beyond the purpose itself.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action ('Check remaining usage allowance') and provides an example. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks explanation of the return format or how to interpret the allowance. Sibling tools like 'get_plan_features' might offer similar data but no context is given to avoid confusion.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'workspace_id' and 'feature' have basic descriptions. The tool description adds context about 'remaining usage allowance' but no further parameter-level detail. Since the schema already defines the parameters, the description does not significantly enhance meaning.

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's purpose: checking remaining usage allowance for a feature. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('remaining usage allowance for a feature'), with examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'track_feature_usage' (which likely increments usage) and 'get_ai_usage' (more specific).

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 the tool should be used when checking allowance before using a feature, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer. Among siblings, 'track_feature_usage' and 'get_plan_features' are related but no guidance is given.

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