ctf_hints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: unlock=True spends points, while the default is read-only listing. It stops short of stating whether the spend is irreversible, whether already-unlocked hints are re-charged, or what authorization the caller needs.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the primary action and the identifier format, then the mode flag and its cost. No filler; every phrase carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are covered. What remains thin is operational context around the point-spending mutation (reversibility, re-charge behavior, permission requirements), which a mutating tool with no annotations ideally would state.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'challenge' is documented as accepting an id or name, and 'unlock' is given both its boolean meaning and its cost consequence plus default behavior. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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+resource ('List hints for a challenge') and clarifies the accepted identifier forms (id or name). It is clearly distinct from the ctf_* siblings (list, show, submit, scoreboard), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 does distinguish two operating modes: the default (list titles/costs) versus unlock=True (reveal content at a point cost), which is useful decision context. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus ctf_show/ctf_list, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must the challenge be solved or the team have enough points).

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