lc_get_ai_usage

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens for missing identities. The term 'bounded' is vague and not explained.

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 (9 words), which is concise but overly brief. It lacks structural elements like examples or clarifications. Every word earns its place, but important details are omitted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should be more thorough. It does not explain the return value, pagination via 'limit', or how to interpret 'bounded' usage. The tool is simple but the description leaves significant gaps.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema). The description only hints at the 'identity' parameter ('for one AI usage identity') but does not explain 'oid' or 'limit'. The agent lacks guidance on required formats or how parameters affect behavior.

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 fetches token and cost usage for one AI usage identity. It distinguishes from sibling get tools (e.g., lc_get_ai_agent) by specifying 'usage' context. However, the term 'bounded' is ambiguous and could be clearer.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_list_ai_usage_identities. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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