ctf_solved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does convey that this is a non-mutating, user-scoped read ('already solved by you / your team'). It says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, or whether results are ordered, which for a zero-parameter list tool is a minor but real gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 no explanation, and with zero parameters the surface is small. The description is essentially complete, though it could have named the sibling to resolve the ctf_list vs ctf_solved ambiguity.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (challenge names already solved), with a scope qualifier ('by you / your team') that separates it from the sibling ctf_list, which presumably enumerates all challenges. It never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing suggests checking progress or avoiding re-solving, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as ctf_list or ctf_me. For a trivial read tool this is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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