get_crisis_resourcesReturn the canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload. Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read operation, and the description complements it by specifying the exact content (988/911/Crisis Text Line payload) and noting it is 'canonical.' However, it does not detail the payload structure or any additional safety behaviors, though this is minor given the annotation coverage.
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: the first states the purpose, the second states the usage trigger. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundant or irrelevant information.
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 (no params, no output schema) and the clear purpose/usage statements, the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what the tool returns and when to invoke it, which is sufficient for this static resource payload.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (an empty schema). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds context about the payload content, even though parameter semantics are not directly applicable.
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: 'Return the canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload.' This uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource (crisis resources with concrete numbers). It also distinguishes itself from article-related sibling tools by focusing on crisis support.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This provides clear, actionable guidance and differentiates it from sibling tools that serve article/resource lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a unique purpose: citations, single article retrieval, crisis resources, site info, listing, and searching. No overlap.
All tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cite_article, list_articles, search_articles).
Six tools is well-scoped for a library server covering retrieval, search, citation, and crisis resources.
Covers core read operations (get, list, search, cite) plus crisis info, but may lack auxiliary operations like topic listing or author lookups.