mess_get_monthly_registration

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about authentication (auth_key/session) and default behavior for month/year, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded with the main functionality. At four sentences, it's efficient, though the Args line could be slightly more polished (e.g., clarifying 'auth_key/session' as alternatives).

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, an output schema exists (implied by Returns statement), and the description adds parameter and return context, it's mostly complete. However, it lacks details on error handling or example outputs, which could help an agent use it correctly in edge cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters: 'auth_key/session, optional month (1-12), optional year'. This adds basic semantics, clarifying authentication options and numeric ranges. However, it doesn't explain the 'params' wrapper object structure or provide examples, leaving gaps compared to the detailed schema properties.

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's purpose: 'Get the monthly mess registration for the current user. Also returns snack availments for the month.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('monthly mess registration'), and scope ('current user'), plus an additional return value. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mess_get_registration' or 'mess_get_registrations' by focusing on monthly data for the current user, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the description focusing on the current user's monthly registration and snack data, suggesting it's for personal monthly summaries. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'mess_get_registration' (which might be for specific dates) or 'mess_get_registrations' (which could be for multiple users). The context of sibling tools hints at alternatives but isn't directly addressed.

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