get_gear

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the user profile is fetched automatically, that notes may be null, and that the tool returns a complete inventory. The lack of any side-effect language and the read-only 'Get' verb implicitly convey that this is a non-destructive operation. The description provides sufficient transparency for an agent to infer the tool's safety and data-return 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 concise and well-structured. It leads with a clear statement of the tool's purpose, then summarizes the returned data in one sentence, and finally addresses the optional parameter within an 'Args' subsection. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple getter with one optional parameter and no complex side effects, the description covers all necessary context: what is returned, the behavior of null notes, the lack of required parameters, and the optional flag. It does not require an output schema since the return content is described adequately, and it provides enough information for an agent to decide whether to invoke this 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 sole parameter, include_stats, is fully explained in the description: it is a boolean that controls whether usage statistics are included, defaults to True, and can be set to False for better performance on large collections. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare type and default, giving an agent a complete understanding of the parameter's effect.

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 it retrieves all gear registered with the user account, using the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'gear'. It distinguishes itself from other getter tools by focusing on the gear inventory, and it explicitly mentions the returned data (free-text notes, usage statistics, default activity associations), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description explains that no parameters are required and then details the optional include_stats parameter, including its default value (True) and the specific use case for setting it to False (faster response with large gear collections). This gives clear and actionable guidance on when and how to use the parameter, exceeding basic parameter listing.

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