perfection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It addresses the output behavior (11 categories, have/total, earned %, verified weights) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a stat retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output details. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a more structured listing of the categories.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description adequately summarizes the output (11 categories, have/total, earned %, verified weights) but omits details on how 'verified weights' are determined or how the overall perfection percentage is calculated. It provides enough to understand the tool's purpose but not full completeness.

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 fully describes the single parameter (save_path) with a detailed description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value for the parameter, only describing the output. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a 'Full weighted Perfection %' with breakdowns of 11 categories including have/total and earned percentages. It identifies the resource (perfection stats) and the output structure, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'calculates', making it slightly less directive.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'full_report' or 'overview'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. The description solely focuses on what the tool returns, not on usage context.

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