get_praise_badges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies an authenticated, parameterless read scoped to the current user, but never states that it is read-only, describes the return shape, or notes any constraints. The one useful hint (implicit signed-in user scoping) is thin.

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?

One short sentence with no padding or redundant clauses. It is front-loaded and wastes nothing, though it is also so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 should at least clarify the meaning of the returned badges. It does not, so an agent cannot tell what a 'praise badge' entry represents or why it would call this endpoint.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'signed-in employee' phrasing usefully confirms that no user identifier is required, which is a small positive over an empty schema.

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 identifies the resource (praise badges) and scopes it to the signed-in employee, but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and leaves the core ambiguity unresolved: whether these are badges the employee has earned or badges available to give to others. It is largely a restatement of the tool name rather than a statement of what the call does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated context beyond 'signed-in employee'. A caller gets no help deciding when this tool is appropriate relative to the many other employee-data getters in the sibling list.

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