get_limits

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it discloses the underlying endpoint (GET /api/limits), that no auth is required, and that all sizes are in bytes. It stops short of any statement about caching or freshness of the limits, but the essential behavioral profile is covered.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then the payload enumeration, then closes with the action directive. The enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct returned field the agent would otherwise not know about.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must describe the return surface itself, and it does so field-by-field, plus auth status and units. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds unit semantics ('Sizes are bytes') that would otherwise be ambiguous, which is more than an empty schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (current BrewPage upload limits) and enumerates exactly what is returned: request size, file counts, sizes, ZIP expansion, path/name lengths, TTL, allowed extensions, skipped system files. No sibling tool (publish_*, get_stats) could be confused with this one.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before publishing a large or multi-file site.' That routes the agent away from blind publishing. It doesn't name explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but for a read-only limits endpoint those are largely unnecessary.

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