get_logged_in_user_ratings

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

The description implies a read-only GET operation, but with no annotations, it bears full burden. It does not disclose what types of ratings are returned, whether pagination or filtering is supported, or any side effects. The endpoint path is given but not elaborated.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus the endpoint. No unnecessary words. Every character earns its place.

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?

The output schema is absent, so the description should help agents understand the return structure. It does not explain what a rating object looks like or any response fields. Given the tool's simplicity (no params), this lack of detail leaves agents guessing about the response format.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since none exist, it is sufficient.

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 'Get Logged In User Ratings' and includes the API endpoint, indicating it retrieves ratings for the authenticated user. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_ratings' or 'get_logged_in_user_rating_for_recipe', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools like 'get_ratings' or 'get_logged_in_user_rating_for_recipe'.

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