WikiSync progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by naming WikiSync as an external data source and stating the saved-account fallback, but says nothing about pagination limits or behavior when the player has no WikiSync data.

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 with zero filler; the data categories are front-loaded and the default-account behavior is appended as a compact qualifier.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned progress categories and the external source, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. It omits any indication of result shape beyond the cursor hint in the schema and of failure modes (unknown player, no WikiSync sync).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the name parameter is optional and falls back to the saved account. It does not elaborate on mode, cursor or questState, which the schema already documents.

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 resource and scope: a player's quest, achievement diary, collection log and combat achievement progress, sourced from WikiSync. That enumerations makes it distinguishable from siblings such as get_account or lookup_player. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Use for ..." frames the use case but offers no when-not guidance and names no alternative (e.g. lookup_player for basic account info). The note that it "Defaults to the saved account" is the only contextual routing hint, and it is more about parameter behavior than tool selection.

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