list_achievements

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

No annotations are present, so description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates a read-like operation ('list') but does not detail pagination, limits, or side effects. The presence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat.

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 sentence containing the core purpose. It is concise but could include more contextual information without excessive length.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. Missing details include differentiation from 'search_achievements' and clarification of 'phrase skills' terminology.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 'List' and the resource 'all achievements (phrase skills)', and mentions optional filtering. It implies a difference from sibling 'search_achievements' but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 mentions optional filtering by resume_id, giving some usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_achievements' or when not to use it.

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