Mana Public

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying the output is markdown text and that only one scoped document is returned, thereby complementing the annotations rather than restating them.

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?

A single tight sentence delivers the resource, scope, output format, and typical use cases. Nothing is padded or repeated, and the most important information (returning a scoped document) is front-loaded.

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 — one enum parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema — the description sufficiently covers what it returns and when to use it. The agent can call it correctly without additional context.

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 schema fully describes the single doc parameter with an enum and description. The description enriches it by naming what the documents cover (pricing, comparisons, auth, API, product), so an agent has extra context beyond the schema without being redundant.

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') and resource ('Mana agent document') with a clear scoping constraint ('one', 'scoped') and output format ('markdown text'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_mana_agent_docs by explicitly returning a single doc rather than listing them.

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 identifies when to use this tool ('for pricing, comparisons, auth, API, or full product context'), which maps directly to the enum values. It does not explicitly contrast with list_mana_agent_docs, but the 'one scoped document' wording clearly implies the alternative for retrieving a single doc.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond these by stating the return includes only public descriptive data and links, and by explicitly warning that source code, bundles, and assets are never returned. This gives the agent a clear boundary on response contents.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the negative boundary about source code/assets is a valuable addition that justifies its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description gives sufficient context: it identifies what is returned, what is not returned, and that only published creations are covered. There is no output schema, but 'public descriptive data and links' provides enough shape for an agent to understand the general response.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema provides, but it doesn't need to because the schema already explains slug, handle, and locale.

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 verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('one published creation'), and clarifies the scope ('public descriptive data and links'). The second sentence explicitly excludes source code, bundles, and assets, which helps differentiate it from tools that might return creation content or binaries.

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 singular 'one' and 'published creation' imply this tool is for fetching a single creation's public metadata, as opposed to listing or searching creations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_mana_creations or search_mana_creations, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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 non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds meaningful context by specifying 'public' and 'published creations', clarifying that unpublished or restricted content is excluded, and that no special access is implied.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and result, then anchors the behavior with a familiar reference to the public profile page. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 read-only, idempotent retrieval tool with only one required parameter, the description adequately explains what is returned and the public scope of the data. There is no output schema, but specifying 'profile and published creations' covers the main return expectations sufficiently.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions: the handle should omit '@' and locale is a BCP-47 code. The description does not add parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: one creator's public profile plus their published creations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mana_creation (a single creation) and search_mana_creations (search) by emphasizing a single creator and profile-level scope.

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 provides clear usage context: use this when you need one creator's public profile and published creations, the same as their public mana.am profile page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the one-creator scoping implies when search would be more appropriate.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the docs are 'scoped' and that the list includes fetch timing guidance, which goes beyond the structured fields. No contradiction.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the added fetch-timing guidance earns its place without bloating the text.

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 list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns (the documents and their fetch timing). While it doesn't detail the exact list structure, that is not critical given the annotations and simplicity. Minor gap: no mention of the sibling get tool.

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% and the parameter include_urls already has a clear description with default value. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'scoped Mana agent documents', and adds 'and when each should be fetched by an AI agent' which defines the tool's specific purpose. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling get_mana_agent_doc by being a list operation, not a fetch.

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: an agent would use this to discover available docs and decide when to fetch them. It does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a list-vs-get sibling pair. No exclusions are given.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about scope ('public' creations), output content ('with counts'), and the semantic role of tags, all beyond what annotations provide.

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 terse, front-loaded sentences: the first establishes what the tool returns, the second shows how to use the result. Every clause 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?

For a simple, optional-parameter listing tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it covers scope, counts, vocabulary, and downstream integration. No output schema exists, but the description conveys enough about the return values for an agent to use the result correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the single limit parameter with range and ordering details, so the description carries little parameter burden. It adds no extra parameter information, but none is needed given 100% schema coverage.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('popular tags used across public Mana creations'), and a distinguishing detail ('with counts'). It clearly separates this tool from siblings like get_mana_creation and search_mana_creations.

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 gives practical usage context by noting the tags are 'the same vocabulary the website browses by' and instructs the agent to feed a returned key into search_mana_creations as 'tag'. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the tool returns the same public creations as the website, returns descriptive data and links, and is meant for recommending real creations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 carry the action, scope, output, and usage scenario with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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 still tells the agent what kind of data to expect ('descriptive data and links'). Combined with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, this is enough for confident selection and invocation, though it stops short of detailing exact return fields.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond that, which meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search or browse the public Mana community' and clarifies the scope with 'the same creations the website shows.' It also states the output ('Returns descriptive data and links'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_mana_creation or list_mana_tags.

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?

It gives a clear intended use case: 'Use this to recommend real Mana creations to a person, and link the returned url so they reach the creator.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly contrast it with get_mana_creation or other siblings, so it lacks when-not guidance.

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