get_playground_usage

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 discloses return fields (credit balance, run counters, etc.) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or side-effect free. The name 'get' implies reading, but behavioral safety is not confirmed.

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 with three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the main purpose, the second adds scope, and the third details returns. No superfluous information, every sentence adds value.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and simple returns, the description provides a solid overview. It covers the action, scope, and return fields. Missing details like error handling or parameter format are minor given the simplicity.

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 schema has one required parameter 'competition_id' with 0% description coverage. The description adds context by stating 'for this competition,' linking the parameter to the competition. However, it does not specify format, allowed values, or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the caller's accumulated Playground practice spend for a specific competition, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_playground_run and get_playground_problem_set by focusing on overall spend and returns.

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 the scope ('playground.read') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for checking own spend but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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