recommended_readingUse this when someone wants a short, curated reading list of Cameron Wilson's work on a topic. Do not use it for exhaustive archive enumeration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| topic | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | ||
| reading_list | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the output is curated and short, and that exhaustive enumeration is not the intended use, which complements the annotation without contradicting 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and an explicit exclusion. No unnecessary 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?
For a read-only recommendation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage boundaries. However, the lack of parameter semantics is a minor gap given the 0% schema coverage, so it is not fully complete.
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 should explain parameters. It does not mention 'topic' or 'limit' at all, leaving the agent to infer their meanings. The schema provides a default and bounds for limit, but no semantic context is given.
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's purpose: providing a short, curated reading list of Cameron Wilson's work on a topic. It also distinguishes itself from exhaustive archive enumeration, differentiating it from sibling search tools.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('when someone wants a short, curated reading list') and when not to use ('Do not use it for exhaustive archive enumeration'), giving clear guidance relative to alternatives.
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.