performix-site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the returned profile is 'grounded', includes the record's own argument, metadata, and cross-links, and is publicly available at a known URL. 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 tight, information-dense sentences. The core action and source are front-loaded, followed by a compact summary of the response content and a public URL reference. No wasted words.

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 single-record read tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and safety annotations already covering read-only behavior, the description provides all necessary context. It even gives the public URL as an additional reference for the same content.

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 fully describes the single 'slug' parameter with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by telling the agent that the slug should come from list_books results, which helps the agent know where to find valid values.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Performix book profile by slug'), clearly identifying the input source ('from list_books') and the content of the result (argument, metadata, cross-links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_books and get_guide, which are collection or other-profile operations.

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 says the slug comes from list_books, giving an agent clear direction on how to obtain the required parameter. It also notes the same content is public, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_guide or when not to use it.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the content is free and public, the same as on performix.app/guide/<slug>, and never the gated depth layer. It also details the exact structure of the returned content, providing rich behavioral context not present in the 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 a full parameter description, a content inventory, a public-URL equivalence, and a gated-content exclusion without any filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every element earns 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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers how the input is obtained, what the output includes, and what it deliberately excludes. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 describes the slug parameter with an example, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful provenance: the slug should come from list_guides, which is actionable guidance beyond the schema's format-only description.

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 and resource: 'Get the full free content of one capability guide by slug.' It enumerates exactly what content is returned (overview, construct sections, open tensions, sources), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_guides (a list of guides) and get_book (a book, not a guide).

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 tells the agent to obtain the slug 'from list_guides,' giving a clear preceding step and implying this tool is for retrieving one guide after listing them. It also excludes the entitlement-gated depth layer, clarifying what this tool is not for, though it does not explicitly compare against get_book.

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 and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the output structure (stances: ally, orthodoxy, mixed, leave-out; one-line summaries) and the exact filtering behavior (case-insensitive substring match across title/authors/tradition/blurb). No contradictions 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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the tool's core purpose and output, and the second explains the single optional parameter. Every sentence earns 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?

Given the read-only annotations, a fully described query parameter, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It names the stance categories and filter fields, leaving no actionable gaps.

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 schema already fully documents the query parameter. The description repeats the case-insensitive substring filter nearly verbatim and adds only the word 'Optional,' providing no additional semantic depth beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the performance-science reading corpus behind Performix') and details the output contents (book/cluster profiles, stance categories, and one-line summaries). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that fetch a single book or list guides.

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 when an agent needs an overview of the book corpus, and the optional query filter indicates a filtering use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_book or list_guides, so the when-not/alternatives guidance is left to inference.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful access context by stating the guides are public, free to read in full, and require no authentication—information not present in the annotations. This goes beyond what the structured fields 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds valuable context about content type and access. Every clause earns its place: public scope, evidence-based grounding, cross-book nature, and no-auth requirement. There is no redundancy or 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 parameterless list tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be listed, where it is published, what kind of content it is, and that no authentication is needed. There are no gaps that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to supplement. The description appropriately focuses on what is being listed rather than on parameter details, which are irrelevant here. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 begins with a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('public, grounded capability guides published on performix.app/guide'). It also distinguishes guides from books by explaining they are 'cross-book model[s]' of evidence for individual executive capabilities, which separates it from list_books and get_book. The example capability ('leading an R&D team') further clarifies the content domain.

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 clearly conveys the context for using the tool: listing publicly available guides, with no authentication required. It does not explicitly name when to use get_guide or list_books instead, but it gives enough contextual signals ('list', 'guides', 'public') for an agent to make a reasonable selection among siblings.

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