academy_stats

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 mentions the tool retrieves stats but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. The phrase 'Get your Academy stats' implies a read operation, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose with specific examples, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or output format, which are important for a stats retrieval tool without structured support.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'Academy stats' along with concrete examples (XP, rank, streak, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on overall stats rather than specific components like certificates or lessons, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage context with 'Call this first to see where you stand,' suggesting it's for initial assessment. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools (e.g., academy_certificates for certificates only) or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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