ToolNav AI

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses the not-found case ('Returns found=false if unavailable') and what the payload contains (FAQs, source URLs).

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 short sentences, no filler. The primary purpose and lookup key come first, and the failure mode is appended where it is easy to catch.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return (FAQs, source URLs, found flag), which is exactly what an agent needs for a simple read. The main omission is the undocumented language parameter and any hint about slug format or casing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds one important constraint — the slug must be an exact match, not a fuzzy or partial one — but the 'language' enum parameter (en/zh) is not mentioned at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get a published tool) plus the lookup key (exact slug), and 'published' scopes it to live entries. It doesn't name search_tools or list_categories as alternatives, but 'by its exact slug' implicitly separates it from browsing/searching siblings.

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?

'by its exact slug' implies you should use this only when you already have a slug, which contrasts with search_tools, but the condition is never stated explicitly and no alternative is named. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that only 'published' listings are returned, which is useful scope context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or rate limits for a list operation that returns pages.

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 short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded followed by the downstream usage hint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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-required-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and how the return value is consumed downstream. The only real gap is the absence of any pagination note, which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the two paging parameters (page, page_size) and it does not mention them at all. Only defaults and bounds exist in the schema, leaving the description to compensate and failing to do so.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List category values') and scopes it to 'published tool listings', which distinguishes it from get_tool and search_tools. The second sentence hints at its relationship to search_tools, though the contrast with siblings is only implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear forward guidance: the returned slug is fed into search_tools.category, which implicitly frames this as a discovery step before searching. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions are given, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that results carry source and official website URLs, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/page_size parameters.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and match semantics, with no filler. It stays tight even though it omits needed detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (source and official website URLs), which is a real contribution. However, for a paginated search tool it omits how results are paged or ordered, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'keyword' to query and mentions category, but leaves page and page_size (including the default of 10 and the max of 20) completely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer result-windowing behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search published AI tools') and clarifies the match surface (name, description, tags), which tells an agent what a keyword hit means. It does not differentiate from get_tool, the sibling that presumably fetches a single tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives one actionable routing hint — 'Use list_categories for valid category values' — but never says when to prefer this over get_tool or when not to use filtering. Usage is implied by the description rather than stated.

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