Get Custom Items

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 disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states the action 'get list' without explicitly confirming it is a read-only operation, mentioning any side effects, or describing limitations. The word 'get' implies retrieval but does not ensure transparency.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no redundant information and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not explicitly state that this retrieves all custom items for an athlete (not just one), nor does it clarify the output format, which is especially relevant since there is no output schema. The presence of sibling tools also calls for a clearer distinction.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (apiKey, athleteId) with clear descriptions, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description itself does not add any additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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 'Ambil daftar' (get list) and clearly identifies the resource as 'custom item' with examples (chart, field, zones). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_custom_item_by_id, which retrieves a single item.

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 context that the tool returns custom items belonging to an athlete, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_custom_item_by_id, create_custom_item, or update_custom_item. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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