my_unlocks

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: requires stored API key, default behavior (unlocked count only), constraints on check_ids (max 50, string ids for mounts/home_nodes), and the 'action' field handling. It could mention error cases or read-only nature, but overall thorough.

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 dense and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose, then parameter details and special cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers most relevant aspects: defaults, special behaviors for different kinds, max constraints, and action field. The missing name_filter documentation prevents a perfect score, but overall it is sufficient for correct agent usage.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains kind (via list of values), check_ids (membership test, max 50, string types), and list_missing (scope limits). However, it omits the name_filter parameter entirely, leaving its purpose unclear. This gap reduces the score below what full coverage would provide.

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 clearly states 'The user's unlocks' and lists specific kinds (recipes, dyes, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like my_account and my_storage.

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 explains how to use parameters (e.g., check_ids for membership tests, list_missing for locked entries) but does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings or state when to use alternative tools. The guidance is implicit via feature details.

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