get_my_restrictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies the return type ('List of the user's current dietary restrictions'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is a minimal but adequate disclosure for a simple read tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second sentence explains the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a basic read operation. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., authentication requirements) to reach a score of 5.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to compensate for.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the current user's dietary restrictions (pantangan).' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('current user's dietary restrictions'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_available_restrictions' or 'update_restrictions', which prevents a score of 5.

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 implies usage by specifying 'current user's dietary restrictions,' suggesting it's for retrieving personal data rather than general or available restrictions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_available_restrictions' or 'update_restrictions,' so it's only implied, not clearly stated.

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