huddo_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the owner-only write restriction, the owner exemption from slow mode, and the default values. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens to values on invalid input, keeping it below a 5.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that opens with the primary purpose and then layers the write details, with every clause carrying information (values, defaults, exemptions). The nested parentheticals are dense but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description adequately covers both the read and write behaviors plus all non-obvious parameters. The only shortfall is that it does not hint at the return format for the read path, which would fully round out a tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates precisely by explaining the two undocumented parameters (slow_mode_s, max_message_chars) — their meaning, units, defaults, and the owner-exemption nuance — which the bare enums do not convey. The 'as' and 'room' params are left to their schema descriptions, a minor gap.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource ('Show a room's limits, or set them'), making the tool's function unmistakable and clearly distinct from every sibling (none deal with room limits). It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states the two usage modes (read limits freely, write limits only as owner) and flags the owner-only condition, giving an agent clear context for when each path applies. It names no alternatives and provides no explicit exclusion guidance, so it is not a full 5.

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