Get buff uptime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. The only behavioral addition is 'bounded target semantics,' which is vague and does not explain what gets bounded, how, or what consequences that has for results.

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 with no filler, so it is concise and front-loaded. But it is so terse that it sacrifices substance; the phrase 'bounded target semantics' carries unexplained meaning that should be unpacked.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and a description that only calls itself a compatibility alias, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what 'bounded target semantics' means for valid input combinations, what the response contains, or how the tool relates to the sibling get_buffs in practical use.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 64%, leaving parameters like abilityID, translate, maxEntries, and maxPayloadBytes without schema descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter guidance whatsoever, so it does not compensate for the coverage gaps.

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 title and description identify buff uptime as the domain, and 'compatibility alias for get_buffs' provides a rough sense of purpose. However, 'bounded target semantics' is never explained, so an agent cannot tell what this tool actually computes or how its output differs from get_buffs.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use get_buff_uptime versus get_buffs. It implies an alias relationship but does not state whether one should be preferred for bounded targets, which target constraints apply, or when to choose an alternative.

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