htb_starting_point_tier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the limitation that per-tier machine listing is removed, so only metadata is returned. This is transparent about behavior, though it does not mention auth requirements or side effects, which are minimal for a read-only metadata lookup.

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 with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the limitation and alternative usage. No unnecessary words.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the limitation and provides direction for related functionality. However, it could mention what the response contains besides 'metadata'.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It indicates that tier_id is the identifier for the tier, but does not explain what values are valid or how to obtain them. This is barely adequate for a single integer parameter.

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 returns metadata for a Starting Point tier id, specifying that it returns name, description, and completion status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like htb_search and htb_list_machines by noting the endpoint no longer provides per-tier machine listings.

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 explicitly advises using htb_search or htb_list_machines + htb_machine_info for Starting Point machine details, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool and what alternatives to use.

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