get_my_name

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns without contradiction. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond language scoping—e.g., what happens if language_code is missing or unsupported, or whether it falls back to a default.

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, front-loaded sentence of eight words that states the tool's core function without any wasted words or redundancy. Perfectly sized for the simple operation.

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?

For a simple getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description mostly suffices but omits the behavior when language_code is not provided (e.g., default language) and the exact format of the returned value. The rich annotations cover safety but not these functional details.

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 0% and the description only says 'for a given language', which essentially restates the parameter name 'language_code' without adding format (e.g., ISO 639-1), allowed values, or default behavior. The sole parameter is optional, but the description does not clarify the implication of omitting it.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('the bot's name') with a clear scope ('for a given language'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_my_description or set_my_name. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a given language' implies the tool is used when a localized bot name is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude scenarios (e.g., getting the default name when no language is specified). No alternative tools are mentioned.

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