get_my_reputation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only discloses the authentication requirement. It does not describe read-only nature, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if unauthenticated. The auth disclosure is useful but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the authentication prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 read with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the minimum. However, it does not clarify what 'reputation and stats' returns, and given similar siblings like get_gene_reputation and get_developer_profile, an agent might need more context to choose confidently.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description has nothing to compensate for and does not mislead about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (reputation and stats) scoped to the current logged-in creator. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_gene_reputation and get_developer_profile by audience, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The purpose is clear but the term 'stats' is somewhat vague.

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 only states a prerequisite ('Requires authentication') and gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gene_reputation or get_developer_profile. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer context.

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