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 annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, and the description adds value by disclosing the 'canonical' nature of the response and the expected immediate surfacing behavior. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 action and primary purpose. No waste; every word contributes to understanding.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what it returns and when to use it. The readOnly annotation and clear usage guidance make it complete.
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?
Without any parameters, the schema is trivially complete. The description is not required to explain parameters, earning the baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_article or search_articles. It precisely states what the tool does.
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 a clear trigger and context, leaving no ambiguity.
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 clearly distinct purpose: article discovery (list, search), retrieval (get), citation (cite), site identity (microsite info), and crisis support. No two tools overlap, and the descriptions reinforce their uniqueness.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., cite_article, list_articles, get_crisis_resources). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only article library. It covers discovery, retrieval, citation, site context, and crisis support without unnecessary bloat.
The domain is fully covered: users can search, list, retrieve full articles, generate citations, access site information, and get crisis resources. No critical operations are missing, and the set forms a complete workflow.