get_user_moles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior through 'Get' and lists the principal output fields (risk levels and analysis dates), but it does not mention possible limitations, pagination, authentication needs, or behavior when a user has no moles.

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?

Two short sentences, no fluff, with the core action front-loaded and the usage context in the second sentence. Every sentence is relevant and readable.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema. The description explains both what it returns and how to use the result in context, which is reasonably complete. Slightly more detail about the structure or granularity of the returned risk fields would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema already fully documents userId with a description, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description only adds the broad context 'for a user', which does not materially augment what the schema already provides.

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?

Description names the verb 'Get', the resource 'all moles', and the relevant data ('current risk levels and last analysis dates'), making the tool's purpose concrete. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_mole_analysis or get_mole_changes because it explicitly says all moles for a user.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand a user's overall skin health status.' This provides useful context for selecting the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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