my_requestsWhat the signed-in customer has asked for and hearted, with current statuses — "did they answer the thing I asked for?" without opening a browser. Requires authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds an important behavioral detail—that authorization is required—and frames the tool as a browser-free status check. This goes beyond the structured fields and enhances the agent's understanding, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
A single, dense sentence that conveys purpose, context, and an authorization requirement. No redundant words, and the information is front-loaded effectively. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
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 no-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, the authorization prerequisite, and the convenience factor. It doesn't enumerate possible statuses or explain 'hearted' further, but these are not blockers for making the call. It is adequately complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage (100%). The description correctly does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters, and there is nothing else needed. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 that the tool retrieves the signed-in customer's requests and hearted items with statuses. It implies a read operation ('what... has asked for and hearted') and distinguishes from sibling tools like heart_request or post_feature_request by focusing on viewing one's own activity. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'gets', so it falls just short of a 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?
The mention of 'without opening a browser' hints at a quick-access context and 'Requires authorization' is stated, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_forum or get_forum_thread. No exclusion conditions or alternative routing are provided, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct actions, but get_product_overview, search_knowledge_base, and server_info all overlap on product-capability questions, and search_forum overlaps with get_roadmap for status discovery. The descriptions help direct usage, but ambiguity remains in a few pairs.
Nearly all tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_pricing, heart_request, post_feature_request, search_forum. Minor deviations like server_info and my_requests are noun-phrase names, but they do not disrupt the overall readability.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal range, and each tool earns its place. The set covers product info, pricing, forum engagement, knowledge base, waitlist, and contact without feeling padded.
The toolset covers the full customer-facing lifecycle: discover the product, check pricing, search and read forum threads, post requests, comment, heart, track personal requests, join the waitlist, and contact a human. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.