he_get_favorites

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

No annotations are provided, but the description accurately conveys that the operation is a read-only retrieval of favorite property IDs. It does not mention any side effects or side effects, which is appropriate 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 concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and result. However, it could mention if the list is ordered or paginated, but such details are not critical for basic usage.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as there are none. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'list of property IDs saved as favorites', and the scope 'by the authenticated user'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like he_get_favorites_full.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like he_get_favorites_full. While it implies that this returns only IDs, no direct guidance is provided.

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