getMyFriends

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

The description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency because no annotations are provided. It only states what data is returned ('friends and online friends') without clarifying behavioral aspects such as whether 'online friends' is a subset or separate list, whether authentication is required, or what the output structure looks like. The lack of any further context leaves the agent guessing about edge cases and return semantics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it maximally concise while still being understandable.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but not entirely complete. It states what data is returned but leaves ambiguity about the structure of the 'friends and online friends' (e.g., whether they are separate list fields or a combined list with an online flag). The given context signals the tool is simple, but the description could still add one clarifying sentence about the response format.

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 zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects that with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail because there are no parameters. The baseline of 4 applies here, and nothing prevents it from being credited.

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 phrase 'Get list of friends and online friends' is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from all sibling get* tools by targeting the user's own friends list, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 that this tool should be used when a user needs their friends or online friends list, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. Since the name and description make the use case obvious, this is a case of implied usage rather than outright absence, but there is no deliberate guidance.

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