query_go_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing that credentials are pre-configured via CLI args or env vars, which prevents unnecessary auth handling. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, whether the action is read-only (though implied by 'query'), or any rate limits. It neither contradicts nor fully discloses 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and outputs; the second clarifies argument and credential requirements. Information is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it returns and that no arguments are needed. It does not specify the exact format of the reset countdown (e.g., seconds, minutes), which could cause minor ambiguity, but overall the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'No arguments needed,' which adds clarity beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to document, this is fully adequate.

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 queries OpenCode Go subscription quota and enumerates specific outputs (usage percent, estimated USD spent, reset countdown). It uses a specific verb 'query' and resource 'Go subscription quota,' making it distinguishable from the sibling tool query_zen_balance.

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?

It explicitly states 'No arguments needed' and explains how credentials are provided, which tells the agent it doesn't need to pass authentication. It does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast usage, but the purpose is clear enough that the agent can infer when to use it. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context.

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