listAchievements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (unlock conditions, points, progression tracking) but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality and data attributes, and the second clarifies the scope. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what data is returned but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or pagination. For a list tool with no structured fields, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete by addressing usage context or operational constraints.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately adds no parameter-specific information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output scope. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to compensate unnecessarily.

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's purpose: listing achievements/trophies with specific attributes (unlock conditions, points, progression tracking) and scope (hero-specific and general gameplay milestones). It uses specific verbs ('list') and resources ('achievement/trophy'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'searchAchievement' tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchAchievement'. It mentions the scope of coverage (hero-specific and general milestones), but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving usage context implied at best.

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