museum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions outputs (donations count and next milestone) but does not specify the return format, whether it reads or modifies data, or what happens if the input is invalid. The behavioral scope is vague.

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 that conveys the core information concisely, with an example added for clarity. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. The lack of structure is acceptable given brevity.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the return value's structure (e.g., text, number, or object) and the exact meaning of 'next milestone'. Domain experts might infer, but general agents need more.

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 schema description for 'save_path' is already detailed with 100% coverage, so the tool description adds no parameter semantics. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool reports museum donations out of 95 and provides the next milestone with an example (60 = Rusty Key). It is specific about the resource (museum donations) and action (reporting count and next milestone). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'missing_museum', though the purpose is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is implied (checking museum progress), but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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