get_friend_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the friend list must be public (implying potential failure if private), names are resolved in one batch call (efficiency), and an API key is required. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds key constraints (public list, batch resolution, API key) in subsequent short sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main behavioral aspects (public requirement, batch resolution, API key). It could mention what happens if the friend list is private or if the API key is invalid, but these are edge cases that the output schema or error handling might cover. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'with names' implying the limit parameter controls how many friends get names enriched, but this is already implied in the schema's description for limit. The description does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'List a player's friends, newest-friended first, with names.' It specifies the verb (list), the resource (a player's friends), and the ordering (newest-friended first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_summary or get_owned_games, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'The friend list must be public.' It also notes the requirement of an API key. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use case.

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