skylight_get_reward_points

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description reinforces that by saying 'Get'. It adds useful output-scope context but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response grouping, pagination, or what happens if no frameId is supplied. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable but not strong.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the parenthetical 'lifetime earned + current balance' adds meaningful detail without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource and earns its place.

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 tool is simple and read-only, and the description states the main return dimensions. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the only parameter, an agent may still be uncertain how to scope the call or interpret the response. More detail about frameId or the returned shape would complete the picture.

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 only parameter, frameId, is a string with no schema description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description never mentions frameId, its format, whether it is a filter, or why it is optional. Because the description should compensate for missing parameter documentation but does not, agent understanding of this parameter is weak.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('reward-point balances'), and specifies the scope ('per family member') plus the two returned dimensions ('lifetime earned + current balance'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as skylight_get_reward or skylight_list_rewards.

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 intended use is clear: it is the tool for viewing reward-point balances per family member, including lifetime and current balances. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique scope and read-only nature make the usage context reasonably unambiguous.

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