ArtiGram

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds a useful permission-scoping signal (only communities the caller may post in), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result size, or what a community record contains.

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 short sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about results, yet it does not indicate what a community entry looks like (name, ID, slug) or how large the list may be. Adequate as a discovery pointer, but thin for a tool whose return shape is entirely undocumented.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies there is no filtering input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the communities") and narrows scope with "you can post in." This is clearly a discovery/enumeration tool, distinguishable from the artifact-manipulating siblings, though the description never names those siblings or contrasts itself with 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 phrase "you can post in" implies the intended use case (finding a target community before posting), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_artifacts. Usage must be inferred.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the post becomes public (returns a 'public link') and that the full source must be supplied rather than a fragment, but omits auth/permission requirements, visibility of the source code itself, immutability, and rate limits.

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 short sentences, the action and its outcome are front-loaded, and the usage note follows. No wasted words, though the second sentence is a bare fragment.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, whose description covers the observable return (a public link) but not permission requirements, publication side effects, or failure modes. Adequate minimum for a fully schema-documented 7-param tool, but not 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 100%, so all 7 parameters are documented by the schema. The description only reinforces the code parameter ('complete source code') and adds nothing about community, kind detection, source, or remix_of, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (publish) and resource (artifact on ArtiGram), and adds that the result is a public link. It does not explicitly distinguish the create path from the sibling update_artifact, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

"Pass the complete source code" implies the required usage pattern, and the name implies creation rather than modification, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or mention of update_artifact as the alternative.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ready-to-use artifacts returned as titles, descriptions and links, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result counts, pagination, or search breadth.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first states what is searched and by what input, the second states what comes back. Purpose and result are front-loaded in that order.

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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input mode, and return shape adequately. Gaps are minor: no mention of result limits/pagination or how the optional community parameter narrows a search.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself; the description only restates the keyword input ('by keywords') and never addresses the optional community parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search ArtiGram for ... artifacts') and clarifies the artifact domain with examples (calculators, tools, games, dashboards). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation siblings post_artifact/update_artifact, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by keywords' and 'ready-made ... use right away', which signals discovery of existing artifacts rather than creation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions or exclusions, and no routing guidance relative to list_communities or the write siblings.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the existing link, votes and comments are preserved across the update. It still omits anything about permissions, reversibility, or whether the old version remains accessible.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the preservation guarantee second. Nothing redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key preservation behavior but leaves gaps an agent would want: authentication/ownership requirements, what happens to unspecified fields, and how kind is chosen or defaulted.

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 coverage is 75% (code, note and post_id are documented; kind has only an enum). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it neither compensates for the undocumented kind field nor clarifies defaults, which is the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: publishing a new version of an existing ArtiGram post. It clearly differs from post_artifact's likely create semantics, though it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 phrase 'one of your ArtiGram posts' weakly implies this is for updating content you already own, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of post_artifact as the alternative for new posts, and no prerequisites such as ownership.

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