get_user_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes filtering behavior and returns, but does not explicitly state the read-only nature, auth requirements, or potential side effects. This is a moderate gap for a read operation.

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 with an Args/Returns structure. Minor redundancy exists between the first two sentences, but overall it is well-organized and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers all parameters, provides a prerequisite, and summarizes the return value. Given the existence of an output schema, it does not need to detail return fields further. It lacks error handling or pagination notes, but these are not critical for this simple tool.

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?

All four parameters are described with meaningful context in the Args section, despite the schema having no descriptions. It explains the meaning of user_id, the allowed values for media_status, and the semantics of limit and show_all. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 function: retrieving all requests for a specific user. The name 'get_user_requests' aligns with this, and it differentiates from siblings like 'get_requests' by scoping to a user.

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 provides a direct prerequisite ('Get the user_id from the get_users tool'), indicating when to use this tool. It implies the appropriate context (specific user's requests) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'get_requests'.

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