cantrip_meter_tiers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('View'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no credit packs are available. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('View available credit packs') and adds specific details about what's shown. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or how it fits with siblings. With no output schema, it should ideally describe the return format more explicitly, but it does mention key output fields.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does mention the output content (tier name, credits, price), which is helpful since there's no output schema. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3 for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('View') and resource ('available credit packs'), specifying what information is shown (tier name, credits, price). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cantrip_meter_balance' (which likely shows current balance) and 'cantrip_meter_history' (which likely shows usage history). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be authenticated), when it's appropriate (e.g., before purchasing credits), or what other tools might be better for related tasks (like checking current balance with 'cantrip_meter_balance').

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