gen_uthana_get_account

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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait by stating the fetch happens 'without exposing the API key,' and 'fetch' implies a read-only operation. However, there are no annotations to cover the safety profile, and the description does not mention permissions, failure modes, rate limits, or response behavior. The description carries some load but not the full burden.

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 purpose is front-loaded, the KB pointer is useful, and the example is minimal and clear. There is no redundant text, though the space saved could have been used for parameter or usage guidance.

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 simple read tool with an output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers purpose and safety and links to KB documentation. It lacks when-to-use guidance and parameter semantics, and there are no annotations to fill those gaps. The output schema and simple scope prevent it from being severely incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain timeout_s or include_user beyond their names and defaults. The example call uses no arguments, giving no parameter guidance. Since the schema provides titles and defaults but no descriptions, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch Uthana account/org allowance state.' It also adds the safety qualifier 'without exposing the API key,' which clarifies intent. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gen_uthana_get_job or gen_uthana_get_character, but the resource scope is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gen_uthana_get_job or gen_uthana_get_motion. The KB reference hints at broader context but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the purpose sentence.

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