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 indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds the behavioral cue to surface immediately on crisis signals. It does not contradict the annotation and provides useful context beyond the structured field.
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 long, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a terse usage guideline. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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, readOnly annotation, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose and when to call it. The crisis content is implicit in '988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload,' and no additional context is needed.
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?
With zero parameters, the description inherently cannot add parameter-specific meaning. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately conveys the tool's outward behavior without needing param details.
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 states a specific action ('Return the canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload') with a clear resource. It inherently distinguishes from siblings (article-related tools like cite_article, get_article) by focusing on crisis resources.
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 instructs when to use: 'Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This is direct and unambiguous, providing clear context and not requiring any alternative mentions.
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 serves a distinct purpose: fetching a single article, listing articles, searching, citing, retrieving crisis resources, and getting site info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (cite_article, get_article, list_articles, search_articles, etc.). The verbs accurately describe the action and the nouns are clear.
Six tools is appropriate for a read-only content library. Each tool covers a necessary functionality (list, search, get, cite, plus safety and context) without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool surface fully covers the core domain of accessing articles: listing, searching, retrieving, and citing. The addition of crisis resources and microsite info completes the lifecycle for a safe, well-rounded library. No obvious gaps.