llm_quota_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it shows usage percentages and route recommendations, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or any side effects.

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 six sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The third sentence about QUOTA_BALANCED could be integrated but overall is efficient and clear.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool monitors and returns. No significant gaps remain for a status tool.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the output format (usage percentages, recommendations) but no parameter details are needed.

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 subscriptions (Claude, Gemini CLI, Codex), distinguishing it from sibling tools like llm_check_usage or llm_model_usage.

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 its use for monitoring quota exhaustion and routing decisions, mentioning the QUOTA_BALANCED profile. While it suggests when to use, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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