get_achievements

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and lists returned data. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or error cases. The description is adequate but lacks depth expected for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by return details. No unnecessary words. Minor improvement possible by adding parameter context without becoming verbose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return values. Missing context includes authentication requirements, that it is user-specific, and the meaning of 'app_id'. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.

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 one required parameter 'app_id' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description adds no meaning about what 'app_id' is (e.g., the game's Steam ID) or its format. The agent would have to infer from context, which is insufficient.

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 tool retrieves achievement progress for a Steam game, specifying verb (get) and resource (achievement progress). It details the returned data (unlock status, description, unlock time, rarity) and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_global_achievement_stats' which returns global percentages rather than per-user progress.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires authentication or that it returns only the current user's achievements. Sibling tools exist for global stats or other game info, but no differentiation or prerequisites are provided.

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