get_kudos

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds value by clarifying that kudos is not the same as reward points and by disclosing the known limitation that nextMultiplier is not present in this endpoint (referencing a specific issue). This provides behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't elaborate on return format (covered by output schema) or other side effects.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second clarifies a critical distinction and a limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or padding.

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 (no parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how it differs from related tools, and a known limitation. An agent can correctly decide to call this tool and interpret its result without needing additional information.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully documented. The description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the returned fields (kudos, level, kudosRemaining) and explicitly noting that nextMultiplier is absent. This adds semantic clarity for an agent, even though no parameters exist to describe.

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 kudos, level, and kudosRemaining from Marvin's XP system. It explicitly distinguishes kudos from reward points and points to get_account_info for the point balance, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 provides clear context: kudos is separate from reward points, and the point balance is found in get_account_info. This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when kudos data is needed) versus get_account_info (for points). It also notes that nextMultiplier is not available here, which is a usage caveat. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state a definitive when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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