llm_quota_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral aspects. It only describes what the tool shows (quota balance) and returns (formatted stats), without disclosing any side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. Simple tools with no parameters still lack transparency on 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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, followed by contextual information and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers its function, use case, and return format. No gaps are evident given the available structured information.

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 no parameters; baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output (usage percentages and route recommendations), which helps the agent understand what the tool will return.

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 the tool shows quota balance across three specific providers (Claude, Gemini CLI, Codex) and provides route recommendations. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('quota balance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that may track usage or budget.

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 explains the tool is used to understand quota exhaustion for making routing decisions, and mentions the QUOTA_BALANCED profile that leverages this data. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, the context is sufficiently clear.

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