horizon_torn_getMyFactionHoF

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool gets rankings, lacking details on caching, pagination, rate limits, authentication specifics beyond the API key parameter, or whether the response is limited to the current faction. The parameter descriptions in the schema are adequate but the tool description adds no behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more informative (e.g., mention the scope 'your faction') while maintaining brevity.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not hint at the structure of the returned rankings (e.g., list of members, scores, ranks). Given the numerous sibling tools with similar names, additional context about what constitutes a 'hall of fame ranking' for a faction would improve completeness.

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 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions already provided (e.g., key, comment, timestamp). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get your faction's hall of fame rankings' clearly states the action (get), the resource (faction's hall of fame rankings), and the scope (your faction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'horizon_torn_getMyHoF' (user HoF) and 'horizon_torn_getTornFactionHoF' (global faction HoF) through the possessive 'your'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'horizon_torn_getFactionHoF' (which may require a faction ID) or 'horizon_torn_getMyHoF'. The description implies usage for the authenticated user's faction but does not state prerequisites (e.g., must be in a faction) or provide explicit exclusions.

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