pws_get_titles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with. Beyond that, it adds a useful behavioral detail: the tool defaults to the player promotion when no promotionId is supplied. This context is not available from annotations alone.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the default behavior is stated compactly.

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-only listing tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (active championships and current champions), the scope (promotion), and the default behavior. No critical information is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the promotionId parameter. It does so by indicating that the tool operates 'for a promotion' and that it defaults to the player promotion, clarifying that the parameter is optional and controls the promotion context. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('active championships and current champions') and scope ('for a promotion'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_roster or get_worker_contracts, leaving no ambiguity about what it returns.

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 states the default behavior ('defaults to the player promotion') and implies the promotionId parameter overrides this default. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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