achievement_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (generates a card from existing data), mentions the ethical constraint of not faking data, and describes the output format. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 concise with a clear title, brief explanation, and bullet-style parameter list. The bilingual text adds length but could be trimmed for English-only agents. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the key 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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no complex behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers inputs, outputs, and ethical stance. Missing are error scenarios, rate limits, and explicit read-only indication. Still adequate for most agents.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: username is GitHub username (defaults to env config) and theme has allowed values 'celestial' or 'light'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. The allowed values for theme are explicitly listed, though not as enums in schema.

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 tool generates a chat-visible visual achievement card based on real GitHub data, producing Markdown SVG, snapshots, next steps, and sharing text. It also explicitly says it does not fake data. This is specific and distinct from siblings like leaderboard or public_growth_report.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_tribulation or forge_agent. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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