The program of the conference sessions currently indexed: session blocks with times, halls, types and speakers, plus the recorded research-paper talks. Optionally filter by day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | Conference day to filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the agenda contains 'currently indexed' sessions and includes recorded talks, but does not discuss potential absence of data, response structure, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core content and a brief note on filtering. No wasted words, and all information is relevant.
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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what is returned and the available filter. It doesn't list every detail, but for a listing tool it is complete enough.
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 description coverage is 100% (the day parameter has an enum and description). The description adds only 'Optionally filter by day,' which is a minor restatement of the parameter's purpose, so it does not significantly augment the schema.
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 what the tool returns: the conference agenda with session blocks, times, halls, types, and speakers. It distinguishes from sibling get_conference_session by focusing on the overall program rather than a single session.
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 implies usage for viewing the full agenda and notes optional day filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_conference_session or other siblings. There is no exclusion or alternative mention.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: company info, blog post retrieval, listing, searching, and conference agenda/session retrieval. Potential overlap between search and get tools is mitigated by explicit guidance in descriptions (e.g., get_conference_session tells you to use search first).
Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_), but 'about_radixia' breaks the pattern as a noun phrase. Overall still readable and consistent in snake_case.
8 tools is well-scoped for a blog + conference content server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the read-only content domain comprehensively: blog posts (list, get, search), tags, conference agenda and transcripts (get, search), plus company info. No obvious missing operations for the apparent scope.
