get_resource_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation by using 'Get' and specifies the return type (tasks), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, limitations, ordering, or what 'touch' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description adequately conveys that the tool returns tasks. However, it is vague about the nature of 'touch' (e.g., direct references or transitive dependencies) and does not mention pagination, error cases, or return format, which could be relevant in a complex system.

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 only parameter, resourceId, is already well-described in the schema as 'Resource ID to query usage for'. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so it relies on the schema for parameter understanding. Schema coverage is 100%, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get all tasks that touch a specific resource' clearly identifies the tool's function: it retrieves tasks associated with a given resource. The verb 'Get' and the resource-focused scope are specific, and this distinguishes it from generic list_tasks or get_task_context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other task-related tools. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the description alone.

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