get_my_diaries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description mentions optional filtering, but it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the key optional behavior, earning every word.

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 low-complexity getter with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It defines what the tool returns (completion status) and the optional filter. A slightly higher score is not needed because no return structure or edge cases are described, but these are not critical for this simple tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'username' and 'region'. The description adds the phrase 'optionally filter by region,' which restates the schema's meaning without adding new detail. Since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('player's achievement diary completion status'). It explicitly mentions the optional filter by region, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_my_quests or get_my_combat_achievements.

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 when to use this tool (to check diary completion) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to prefer. The optional region filter hints at a use case, but no direct comparison to siblings is given.

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