my_story

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

The description details the report contents and requires authentication (login), which informs the agent of prerequisites. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does not mention any side effects or mutability, but the tool appears read-only.

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 bullet points, making it easy to parse. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what data it returns, and authentication requirements. No gaps are apparent.

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?

No parameters exist (input schema is empty), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It effectively describes what the tool does without needing to reference parameters.

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 it shows a 'Dali creative intelligence report' with specific elements like prompt scoring history, grade distribution, and creative DNA. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on personal history and insights, making it unique.

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 implies usage for viewing personal prompt scoring history and requires login, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling differentiation is provided.

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