pws_get_inner_circle

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond these: data is 'sanitized', the tool depends on a plugin, and it 'returns unavailable without affecting core PWS tools' when the plugin is absent. This clarifies side effects and preconditions, though it could elaborate on what 'sanitized' entails.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The second sentence concisely conveys the failure mode and non-interference. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the essential behavior, the plugin prerequisite, the sanitized nature of the data, and the graceful degradation when absent. With a single optional parameter and no output schema, it is largely complete. Minor gaps include not specifying the exact return shape when successful, but the resource types ('role assignments') provide enough clarity for an agent.

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 single optional parameter 'providerId' is fully documented in the schema with an enum and a clear description about TEST builds. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the description need not repeat this, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the exact resource: 'the current save and player promotion's sanitized Inner Circle role assignments'. It also conditions on plugin presence, clearly distinguishing this from generic roster tools. This fully states the tool's function and scope, making it stand out from siblings.

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 clear context: the tool works 'when a compatible Inner Circle plugin is installed' and returns unavailable otherwise. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond plugin absence, but for a getter in a large collection, this contextual condition is sufficient guidance for an agent to decide when invoking is appropriate.

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