byimprint-site-indexReturn canonical public service, evidence, legal, developer, and machine-readable URLs for byImprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markdown | Yes | Current public byImprint guidance in Markdown. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description only needs to add content-level context. It does clarify the returned artifact is a canonical set of URLs across several categories, which is useful, but it adds no further behavioral detail such as response structure or ordering.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no filler or repetition. Every word 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 zero-parameter read-only index tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates the URL categories covered. The only minor gap is not explicitly routing the agent to byimprint-when-to-use for usage guidance, but this is not essential for invoking the tool 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because nothing is missing.
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') and a precise resource: canonical public service, evidence, legal, developer, and machine-readable URLs for byImprint. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling byimprint-when-to-use, which is about usage decisions rather than URL retrieval.
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 its use: call it to get a canonical URL index for byImprint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over byimprint-when-to-use or mention any exclusion criteria, leaving the routing partially to inference.
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.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one returns URLs, the other provides usage guidance. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.
Both tool names share a consistent 'byimprint-' prefix, and the suffixes are descriptive ('site-index', 'when-to-use'). Although not a strict verb-noun pattern, the naming style is uniform and easy to parse.
With only two tools, the server is tightly scoped to its stated purpose of providing public guidance for byImprint. The number is minimal and directly supports the service without unnecessary weight.
The domain of 'byImprint Public Guidance' is fully covered by the two tools: one offers all relevant URL types (service, evidence, legal, developer, machine-readable), the other gives decision-making guidance. No obvious gaps remain.