academy_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that sign-in is required and itemizes the returned content, which is useful behavioral context. It does not describe the output format or possible side effects, but for a zero-parameter stats retrieval this is adequate.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main subject, and lists the key stats without redundancy. The parenthetical about sign-in is a necessary addition.

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 is a zero-parameter stats getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the returned data and authentication requirement. It could be more detailed about response structure, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail but none is needed; it instead explains the tool's return content.

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 identifies the tool as returning Academy account stats and enumerates the specific data points (XP, rank, streak, lessons completed, badges, certificates, weekly league). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like academy_levels or academy_certificates, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 implies its use as the go-to for a summary of Academy account stats, and the sign-in requirement is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like academy_levels or academy_certificates, leaving the comparison implicit.

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