qa_get_attempts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the read-only nature via 'Read', identifies the data source, and notes that raw round details are retained. Still, it does not describe ordering, default limit, or whether the operation is safe/non-mutating beyond the verb.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds relevant sourcing and retention context without wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the resource and source adequately. However, 'recent' is vague, return behavior is unspecified, and there is no guidance about how this relates to sibling attempt/round tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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, 'limit', is clearly named and constrained in the schema with min/max values, so the schema carries most of the meaning. The description does not explicitly explain that limit controls the number of attempts returned, which would have compensated for the 0% schema description 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 clearly identifies a read operation on 'recent server-owned attempts' from the 'complete account export', which is specific enough to distinguish from round/session/state tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource and source are clearly stated.

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 implied: call this tool when you need recent server-owned attempts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like qa_get_round_detail or qa_get_game_state, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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