t2000_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read/write nature and value semantics but does not mention whether changes are persistent, require authentication, or have side effects. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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 purpose, and every part is necessary. No wasted words.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, how to use the actions, and parameter semantics. It does not describe the output format, but for a simple view/set config tool, this is a minor omission.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds context by explaining the action values, unit (dollars), and special meaning of 0. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 is for viewing or setting agent safeguard limits, specifying the two types of limits (per-transaction max, daily send limit). The verb 'view or set' is specific and descriptive.

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 how to use the tool with actions 'show' and 'set', and clarifies that values are in dollars with 0 meaning unlimited. Although it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, the purpose is sufficiently distinct that no alternative is needed.

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