get_desires

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, how the levels are returned, or any other behavioral traits. The threshold instruction is advisory, not a disclosure of tool behavior.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences that front-load the purpose and add a key action threshold. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and a usage trigger. However, it omits details about the response format (e.g., how desire levels are presented), which the agent would need to interpret results. Still, it is adequate for a basic read tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning since none exist. No additional parameter information is required.

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 function with a specific verb+resource: 'Get current desire levels.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (satisfy_desire, boost_desire) by being a read-only retrieval operation, and the threshold instruction adds concrete scope.

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 phrase 'Act immediately on any desire with level >= 0.7' gives clear context for when to use the tool (to check levels) and what to do next (act if threshold met). It implies the need for follow-up actions via sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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