ilinks_get_quota

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it makes clear this is a pure query scoped to the current logged-in user and discloses the return contents (used, limit, remaining, VIP status), implying no side effects. It omits any note on auth prerequisites or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the actionable recommendation. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload, so an agent knows what to expect. It does not clarify units (bookmark count vs. bytes) or whether VIP status affects the limits, minor gaps for a zero-parameter read.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb (查询) and resource (书签与文件夹容量配额) and enumerates the returned fields (已使用量、上限、剩余可用量、VIP 状态). An agent can distinguish this read-only quota check from the mutation siblings like ilinks_create_bookmark and ilinks_create_folder.

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?

Explicitly recommends calling it before adding bookmarks or folders, which gives a clear usage trigger. It does not name alternatives or state when not to bother (e.g., it is cheap/idempotent), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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