get_items_for_sidequest

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what happens if the sidequest does not exist, whether the results are paginated, or if there is any ordering. Given annotations already cover the safety profile, a score of 2 reflects minimal added value.

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?

While the description is concise (one sentence), it is under-specified and lacks structure. Every sentence should earn its place, but this sentence merely restates the name without adding value, making it more of a tautology than a helpful description.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'items' are returned, the format, or any constraints. For a retrieval tool, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the behavior without further inference.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Sidequest ID' and 'pending', 'in_progress', 'completed' (NULL = all)). The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or provide any additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already sufficiently documents the parameters.

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 'Get items for sidequest' is a tautology of the tool's name 'get_items_for_sidequest', restating the exact verb and resource without adding any additional meaning or differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_items_for_subtask' or 'get_items_for_task'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that this tool retrieves all items for a sidequest regardless of status, while other tools might filter or return incomplete items.

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