core_bwlimit

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions reading and updating, which covers the basic behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose side effects of updating (e.g., immediate impact on transfers), persistence, or required permissions. The description is adequate but not thorough for a mutating tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the rclone reference adds context. It could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., separating read vs. update) but remains clear and concise.

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 complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description explains the main behavior but omits important details: the format of the read result, the effect of async/group, and any error conditions. The description is minimally complete but could better prepare the agent for using the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the example format for rate ('off', '5M', schedule) already present in the schema, and references the rclone command but adds no new semantic meaning. The additional parameters (_async, _group) are not mentioned, but they are standard and documented in schema.

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 gets or updates bandwidth limits, specifying the exact resource and actions. It also references the equivalent rclone command, which aids identification. Among sibling tools, core_bwlimit is unique in dealing with bandwidth limits, so purpose is clear.

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 implies usage for reading or setting bandwidth limits but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context. With no sibling tools covering bandwidth, the lack of explicit guidelines is a minor gap.

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