OpenCodex provider quota and balance

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

Beyond the annotations (which already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it reads cached dashboard data, does not force a refresh, and does not send model completions (i.e., no token cost). It also pre-empts a misinterpretation by stating missing quota means unavailable/unsupported, never zero usage.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the purpose leads, then usage and behavioral caveats. The Chinese and English sentences partially duplicate each other, which is slight overhead, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to cover purpose and interpretation caveats, which it does—especially the missing-quota rule and cache behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 100% and the single `provider` parameter is fully documented with examples and the omit-for-all rule in the schema itself. The description restates 'Omit provider to list all' without adding format or matching semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: read provider quotas (amount, balance, remaining ratio, reset time, data refresh time) from the local OpenCodex dashboard. It is unambiguous about scope ('本机'/local) although there are no sibling tools to differentiate from.

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?

It gives clear operating context: omit `provider` to list all, and it explicitly notes the tool uses cached dashboard data rather than forcing a refresh. It does not state when an agent should prefer a refresh path or what to do if data is stale, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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