List Users Self Ratings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Get Logged In User Ratings' and does not disclose pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether this returns all ratings or a single aggregate. These traits may be inferred but are not stated.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but its brevity comes at the cost of explanatory depth.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent among the many rating-related siblings. Missing usage guidance and behavioral details make this only minimally viable for correct invocation.

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 schema has one optional accept-language parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain it. The agent receives no help understanding the parameter's purpose, format, or valid values beyond the property name itself.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Logged In User Ratings'), indicating it returns the authenticated user's ratings. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_users_by_id_ratings by the 'Logged In' scope, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related rating endpoints such as list_users_by_id_ratings or get_users_self_ratings_by_recipe. The implied use case is retrieving the current user's own ratings, but there is no explicit context or exclusion information.

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