get_my_bank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search and browse' implies a non-destructive read operation, and 'synced' hints that data may be from a synchronization rather than live. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or sync lag, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action followed by supported filters. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity and rich schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and filtering options. It does not describe the output format, but no output schema is provided, and for a simple 'get my bank' tool, the expected return is fairly obvious. Minor gaps include handling of unsynced data or empty results, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description restates the filtering capabilities (item name, tab, quantity) but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter meanings effectively.

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 the tool's purpose: searching and browsing the player's synced bank contents. It uses specific verbs ('search', 'browse') and a distinct resource ('bank contents'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_inventory or get_my_equipment.

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 implies usage context by focusing on the player's own bank and mentions supported filtering capabilities. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for bank-related queries.

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