get_town_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' the current state, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permission requirements, or return format details. Adequate for a simple getter but not comprehensive.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the output contents. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return values (commits, ranking, tiers). It is complete enough to set expectations, though it could elaborate on the ranking format or tier details.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters as none exist, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 returns the current Gitown status, listing three specific pieces of data: number of commits, contributor ranking, and building tiers. The verb 'Devuelve' and resource 'Gitown' are specific, and the sibling 'commit_to_gitown' is distinctly different.

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 this is a read/status tool and that commit_to_gitown is the write/action tool, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives. No usage context or exclusions are provided, only the basic function.

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