get-my-preferences

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read-only retrieval with no side effects, but does not detail return shape, default behavior when no preferences exist, or authentication requirements. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without any filler. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficient to select and invoke it. It lacks an explicit return-value description or behavior when preferences are unset, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more detail; a fuller description could still add value, so not a 5.

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 tool has zero parameters and the empty schema provides 100% coverage by construction. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource ('current user's preferences'), with 'current user's' scope distinguishing it from admin preference tools like admin-get-all-preferences and from upsert/delete mutations. This is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 phrase 'current user's' provides clear context that this is for the caller's own preferences, implying alternatives for admin/user-specific lookups. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named sibling alternatives, but the scope is sufficiently clear for selection.

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