horizon_torn_getTornHonorsSpecific

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as that the tool is read-only, whether authentication is required, what happens if an ID is invalid, or any rate limiting. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise (one short sentence), but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is front-loaded and easy to read, but it lacks sufficient information to stand alone. Every word should add value, and here the description is adequate but not impressive.

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 absence of output schema, the description should provide some insight into return values or behavior. It does not. For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about the result format, pagination, or error handling.

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%, so the input schema already describes the parameters (ids, key, comment, timestamp). The description 'Get specific honors' adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters or clarify how to use the 'ids' field (e.g., if comma-separated format is expected, but that's already in the schema). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific honors' identifies the tool as retrieving specific honor records, but it is overly terse and does not clarify what 'honors' refers to in context (e.g., in-game achievements). It barely distinguishes from siblings like 'horizon_torn_getTornHonors' which probably gets all honors; the word 'specific' hints at this, but the description could be much clearer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, comparing to 'horizon_torn_getTornHonors' or 'horizon_torn_getMyHonors' would help an agent decide. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios (e.g., when you have known honor IDs).

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