Get Injection Cap

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavior: the fallback chain to environment variables and the default cap, plus the 'not set' return condition. This goes beyond what annotations cover and helps the agent predict outcomes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and including only essential fallback details. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description explains the main behavior (return cap, 'not set' case, fallback chain). It is complete for typical usage, though it does not discuss error handling for invalid vault names, which may be covered by the output schema or error messages.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'per-vault' which implies vault_name identifies a specific vault, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or explain edge cases (e.g., nonexistent vault). Since the parameter is simple and self-explanatory from the tool name, a score of 3 is acceptable.

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's purpose: 'Return the stored per-vault injection token cap (or 'not set' if none).' This uses a specific verb ('return') plus resource ('per-vault injection token cap') and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle injection or configuration differently.

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 clear context for when the tool is used: to retrieve the stored cap for a specific vault, including fallback behavior when unset. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the purpose is specific enough to make usage obvious.

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