get_user_studies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get studies' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'studies' entails (e.g., format, scope). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in this environment with many sibling tools.

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, documenting the 'username' parameter as 'Username of the player'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain semantics like what constitutes a valid username or how studies are retrieved. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 studies created by a user' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('studies created by a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_study_chapter' or 'export_all_study_chapters', which might handle similar data but with different operations, so it lacks specific sibling distinction.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to other tools in the list (e.g., 'export_study_chapter' or 'get_user_activity'), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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