get_user_hint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the conditional return behavior and instructs the agent what to do when a hint is returned. It does not explicitly state whether the call has side effects, but the 'get' verb and the sibling acknowledge_hint imply it does not acknowledge the hint itself.

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 purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids extra detail while still covering the condition, the return value, and the agent action.

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 zero-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient: it states what is returned, when it is returned, and what the agent should do with it. The only implicit detail is the no-hint case, but 'only if' makes that clear.

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 zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parametric ambiguity for the agent to resolve.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('a hint message about the feedback system'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from siblings like acknowledge_hint and get_vibe_feedback because it targets the feedback-system onboarding hint specifically.

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: a hint is returned only if the user hasn't been told about the feedback system, and the agent should relay it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the conditional logic is enough to guide correct usage.

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