get_avatars

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 states the tool returns a list of avatars with IDs and details, which is a basic description of the output. However, it does not disclose any side effects (likely none since it's a read-only operation), authentication requirements, or any limitations or errors. It does not contradict the absence of annotations, but could add more behavioral context.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses bullet points for usage scenarios and a separate 'Returns' line for output, making it easy to scan. 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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any potential limitations (e.g., if avatars are predefined vs. user-uploaded) or availability conditions, but for a simple lookup tool this is adequate.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (since there are no parameters to describe). The description adds context by explaining the purpose and return value, which is helpful given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description provides sufficient meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get available avatar options for Skylight profiles. It specifies the resource (avatars) and the context (Skylight profiles), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other entities like calendar events, chores, or lists. The verb 'Get' is explicit and matches the tool name.

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 usage scenarios: setting up a new family member profile, changing a profile picture, or exploring avatar options. It gives context on when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would have been beneficial given the sibling tools include get_family_members (which might also be relevant).

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