getMyName

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-style 'get' operation and a return type, but does not mention edge behavior such as what an omitted or empty language_code means or that the name may be unset/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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the return type is stated in the second sentence.

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 and the schema covers the parameter, but with no output schema the description only names 'BotName object' without indicating its fields or the fallback behavior when language_code is absent/empty.

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 input schema already documents language_code at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The phrase 'given user language' only restates the schema's description, adding no material semantic detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('current bot name'), and the language scoping that distinguishes it from getMe and the description-related sibling tools. This is immediately actionable and not a tautology.

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?

It clearly frames the context: use this when you need the bot's name localized to a user's language. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous for a simple getter.

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