get_limits

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full responsibility and clearly discloses that this is a safe read-only operation, explicitly stating there is no setter. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 concise, with two short sentences. The first is a fragment but meaningful; the second adds important context about read-only intent. No unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It provides sufficient context about purpose and usage, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable and expected.

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 states 'The risk limits in force,' which clearly identifies the resource as current risk limits, and the tool name 'get_limits' supplies the verb. It differentiates from siblings like get_positions and get_account by focusing on risk limits, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb in the description text.

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 explains the intended use: 'an agent that can see the limits can plan within them instead of discovering them by rejection,' and explicitly notes 'Readable is not writable -- there is no corresponding setter anywhere in the server,' which guides against misuse. It does not, however, name alternative tools for comparison.

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