pickle_usage

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: it navigates to My Pickle > Usage and returns, never uses or buys a ticket, sends no message, and requires an open chat with the allowed agent. It stops short of describing failure behavior or latency if the Usage screen is unavailable.

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 payload is front-loaded: what is read, then how, then the safety constraint, then the precondition. Sentences are dense but each carries information; "never uses or buys a ticket" mildly overlaps readOnlyHint, though "sends no message" adds new value.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so fully: percent used, time to reset, full/half tickets, and auto-use setting. Combined with the stated read-only guarantee and the starting-state precondition, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, but that parameter is a one-value enum ("agent"), so its semantics are nearly pinned by the schema itself. The description contributes a little by framing it as "the allowed agent's open chat," clarifying that the agent must already be permitted and connected.

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 and resource: "Read the owner's Pickle daily usage (percent used, time until the daily reset) and remaining reset tickets (full / half) plus the auto-use setting." It even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the tool for checking quota/credits, and the precondition "Start from the allowed agent's open chat" is supplied. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., pickle_call) for related quota concerns.

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