Get Passes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the fallback merge and that results are paged and include hostel identity, but says nothing about read-only status, auth/permission requirements, or what happens when include_fallback is false while the console is empty.

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?

It is a single tightly packed sentence with no filler, and the primary resource ('My-passes console') is front-loaded. The trailing 'plus, when... fallback' clause is slightly tangled but every part carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. However, for a read tool with zero annotations, the description omits permission/auth context and the exact conditions under which the fallback is suppressed, leaving modest gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with page, per_page, and include_fallback each documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates pagination and the fallback flag, adding no syntax or interaction detail beyond 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?

The description names a concrete resource and scope: the caller's own pass requests from the 'My-passes console', plus hostel identity, with a named fallback to help-centre outpass requests. An agent can distinguish it from create_outpass/preview_outpass, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_help_requests, which covers overlapping data.

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 fallback condition ('when the pass console has no rows') gives some contextual guidance, but that is the tool's internal behavior rather than a when-to-use rule for the agent. It never states when to pick this tool over get_help_requests or preview_outpass, leaving the choice implied.

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