skylight_get_reward

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the main safety concern, and the description is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the annotation, such as behavior on a missing id or how frameId scoping affects the result.

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?

'Get one reward' is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to identifying the action, making it appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 description gives no context for either parameter, no return-value information, and no usage caveats. With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, an agent cannot tell what result to expect or how the optional frameId should be used.

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 has two parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions id or frameId or explains their roles. Since the schema provides no property descriptions, the tool description was required to compensate but does not.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'reward', and 'one' clarifies singular retrieval, distinguishing it from list_rewards. It does not specify what identifier selects the reward or what a reward contains, so it stops short of a fully rich definition.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of list_rewards, create_reward, update_reward, redeem_reward, or delete_reward. The word 'one' implies single-object retrieval, but the description gives no explicit context, criteria, or alternatives.

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