get_preferences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get your preferences' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, what data format is returned, if there are rate limits, or any side effects. It fails to provide essential context for safe and effective use, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise ('Get your preferences'), which is efficient but borders on under-specification. It lacks structure or front-loading of critical information, such as clarifying what 'preferences' entail. While it avoids unnecessary words, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, making it less helpful for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'preferences' includes, the return format, or any behavioral context needed for proper use. While the low complexity reduces the burden, the description fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output effectively.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't introduce confusion about parameters, but it also doesn't add value beyond the schema's completeness.

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 'Get your preferences' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_preferences' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of preferences are retrieved (e.g., user settings, game preferences, account configurations) or from what context. While it uses a clear verb ('Get'), it lacks distinction from sibling tools that also retrieve data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context-specific triggers, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_my_profile' or 'get_kid_mode', which might overlap in retrieving user-related data. This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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