latest_workUse this when someone asks for Cameron Wilson's latest or recent published work. Return recent public items from the same canonical source as CamFeed RSS and JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that items are 'recent public items' from a 'canonical source' (CamFeed RSS and JSON), which clarifies data scope and provenance beyond the annotations. This is useful context without contradicting the structured metadata.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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 tool with one well-defined parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate. It clarifies the source and public nature of the data without needing to explain return values (covered by output schema) or safety (covered by annotations).
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% and the description does not mention the single 'limit' parameter at all. While the schema provides a self-explanatory name, default, and bounds, the low coverage means the description should compensate, and it does not.
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 tool returns recent public items for Cameron Wilson, with a specific verb ('return') and resource ('published work'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like featured_work or work_by_topic, but the 'latest or recent' framing provides enough specificity for a 4.
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 'Use this when someone asks for Cameron Wilson's latest or recent published work,' giving a clear trigger condition. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for a tool of this simplicity.
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.
Multiple tools overlap in purpose: search vs. search_journalism both search but differ in advanced filters; fetch vs. get_item both retrieve by ID but with different output types; featured_work vs. recommended_reading both return curated lists. The descriptions help somewhat but boundaries remain unclear for an agent.
Tool names mix styles: bare verbs (fetch, search), verb_noun (get_item, search_journalism), and descriptive phrases (featured_work, latest_work, recommended_reading, work_by_topic). No consistent pattern across all names.
With 8 tools covering search, retrieval, and curated lists, the count is well-scoped for a specialized journalism archive. Each tool serves a distinct niche, and the number is within the ideal 3-15 range.
The surface covers the major workflows: general search, advanced search, item retrieval, and curated/featured lists. Minor gaps like bulk listing or topic enumeration without search exist but are addressable via search_journalism.