tokmeter_pulse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the snapshot nature and the supported scope values, but does not describe freshness, authentication, or rate-limit 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?

Three tight sentences with no waste. The core value proposition is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and scope support.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the metrics returned (cost, tokens, models, projects, providers) and the available scopes. It is nearly complete for an overview tool, though it could more explicitly clarify that the project and providers parameters are optional filters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters and the scope enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only reiterates the scope options and adds no meaning about the project or providers filters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a quick pulse-check snapshot of token usage') and enumerates the key metrics returned. It positions itself as the default first tool, which implicitly distinguishes it from the many drill-down siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

Explicitly says to 'Use this as the default first tool to understand overall AI agent spending,' giving clear entry-point guidance. It does not state when-not to use it or name which sibling to switch to for detailed breakdowns, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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