get_quota

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the specific quota categories returned (read/write/write_note) and timeframes (daily/monthly), but omits whether this call consumes quota itself, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond 'current API Key'.

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?

Single information-dense sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb, followed by target resource and specific return value breakdown (three categories, daily/monthly).

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 utility tool without output schema, the description adequately specifies what data is returned (quota types and time granularities). Could be improved by mentioning edge cases (e.g., unlimited quotas), but sufficient for tool selection.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (coverage 100% trivially). With no parameters requiring semantic explanation, this meets the baseline score of 4 as defined in the rules.

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 uses the specific verb '查询' (query) with resource '调用配额' (call quota), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns quota metadata for the current API Key rather than content (notes/topics) like other tools.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., whether API Key must be configured first), and no warnings about when quota checks might fail.

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