CrabCut

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks credits and plan, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the output takes (e.g., JSON with specific fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 purpose ('Check your remaining credits and current plan') with zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying what is checked, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function without parsing extraneous 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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks context about authentication, output format, or usage scenarios. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must guess behavioral details, making this incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (since there are none), so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as none exist, and doesn't add unnecessary details. It focuses on the tool's purpose without parameter-related distractions.

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 what the tool does ('Check your remaining credits and current plan') with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('credits and current plan'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'download_clip' or 'list_projects' by focusing on account/usage information rather than media or project management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_project_status' might also involve status checking).

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 (like authentication needs), appropriate contexts (e.g., before generating clips to avoid credit exhaustion), or relationships with sibling tools (e.g., whether 'get_project_status' might overlap with plan information). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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