my_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for a stored API key, explains that certain kinds list encounters since last reset, notes API limitations (no per-map completion), and instructs on handling the 'action' field. No contradictions.

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 reasonably concise, front-loading the purpose and then detailing kinds, prerequisites, and special notes. It could be slightly more streamlined, but every sentence adds value.

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 has two parameters, an output schema (which is not required to be explained), and moderate complexity (multiple kinds, special conditions), the description covers the key use cases, behavioral notes, and the action field instruction. No major gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it enumerates valid values for 'kind', explains that 'achievement_ids' is required when kind is achievements (max 50), and tells users where to find IDs. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states it retrieves 'the user's progression' and lists specific kinds (achievements, masteries, etc.), which clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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 mentions the prerequisite of a stored API key and instructs to find achievement IDs via wiki or public tools. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like my_account or my_storage, nor does it specify when not to use this tool.

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