t2000_limit

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is READ-ONLY, reads a specific config file (~/.t2000/config.json), and returns a specific shape including { configured: false } when no limits are set. It also clarifies that the tool cannot modify limits, a critical safety detail.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose and key constraints. However, it is slightly verbose with examples and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, but could be tightened to three sentences while retaining essential information.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the purpose, return format, data source, read-only nature, and indirect usage for suggesting changes. No important aspect of the tool's operation is omitted.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds value well beyond the empty schema by explaining the tool's behavior and return format (e.g., reading config, returning { configured: false }). It effectively tells the AI what the tool does without needing parameters.

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 it views opt-in spending limits set via CLI, using specific verbs ('View') and resource ('user's opt-in spending limits'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like t2000_pay, t2000_send, etc., by being read-only and focused on limits.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (before writes, to inform users of their caps) and when not to use it (setting/clearing limits must be via CLI). It provides direct alternatives by mentioning CLI commands and instructing the AI to ask the user if changes are needed.

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