quota_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully reveals that the server enforces cache TTL, lease, and backoff and that callers cannot force refresh. This goes beyond the empty schema and helps set expectations for callers.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. The key action and resource appear first, and the behavioral caveat follows directly.

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 has zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the most important runtime constraints. It doesn't state the return value format, but for a simple quota snapshot read this is a minor gap.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is already fully descriptive and there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies as the tool has no parameter surface requiring explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('shared adaptive Codex quota snapshot'), clearly distinguishing this tool from the sibling tools, which involve preflight checks, checkpoints, and deferral. Its purpose is immediately obvious.

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 use when a caller needs the current quota snapshot and clearly states that a forced refresh is not possible. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but none of the sibling tools appear to overlap with quota status, so the guidance is adequate.

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